Timeline for What choices/UI is an edit reviewer presented with?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:21 | comment | added | DWright | let us continue this discussion in chat | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:19 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters | Community consensus, not tradition. That's what we have Meta for; there are certainly multiple questions here on 'what makes an edit too minor', and so far they all lead roughly to the same answer, or are closed as dupes. | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:17 | comment | added | DWright | Well that kind of information was what I was trying to elicit. I.e. what is guiding some to reject such edits. You're saying there isn't necessarily a stated guideline, but that there is something amounting to community consensus or tradition. | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:14 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters | @DWright: I wish there were more guidelines in the rejection form. It's certainly the concensus from numerous discussions here on Meta. I believe there is a feature req here somewhere to give more guidance in the review queue. | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:13 | comment | added | DWright | Is that part of the guidelines for editors? | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:12 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters |
Reject edits that fix one mistake (such as a typo) as too minor, especially if the editor could have made other improvements. The specific post you used as an example, has multiple issues (it was tagged with iquery, another item that could have been fixed).
|
|
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:11 | comment | added | DWright | I'm not sure I followed that last comment, but as I'm gaining the strong sense that I have not fully understood the situation, I'm happy to let things rest at something like this summary: "The minor edits that are discouraged include what would otherwise be substantive edits, since they clog the queue. Please leave all minor edits to actual editors." Is that the gist of it? | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:10 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters | This is rapidly becoming a dupe of Is correcting a common misspelling too minor an edit? for example. | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:09 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters | And take a look through meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=%5Bsuggested-edits%5D+minor | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:07 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters | That's turning it on it's head. We actively discourage minor edits, and the argument that someone needs to fix that spelling mistake doesn't count in favour of minor edits. A typo is not a big enough problem with posts to allow for minor edits. | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:06 | comment | added | DWright | Well, I did do some searching. Maybe the titles were misspelled. :-} | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:05 | comment | added | DWright | Well, that's a valid point. I hadn't previously heard an angle like "don't suggest small edits that you think actual editors will fix". If that's in some way a bit of an "official" take on things, I'd have to reconsider what I've been doing. At that same time, if, for the sake of argument, I've been proceeding a bit cluelessly by suggesting these edits, I still don't understand the motivation behind wanting to leave a user's title broken, once I've perhaps cluelessly suggested such an edit. Should edit reviewers reject the suggestion and then go make the fix themselves? | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:03 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters | You may want to search for previous discussions on this very topic, btw, it's been hashed out to death before. | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 8:01 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters | @DWright: Why not leave that to people that can edit directly and don't need to clog the suggested edit queue? There are plenty of people that can make that edit. | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 7:57 | comment | added | DWright | In other words, concerns for the size of the edit queue aside (and I have no insight into how bad things are there or not), who's doing the user a helpful favor? The person who fixes the title, or the person who leaves the hapless user's title broken, even though it has been identified as broken? And how does this segue into making a point about edit queue size to the person trying to help via an edit, at the expense of the user who could have been helped? | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 7:53 | comment | added | DWright | Let me go at it from a different angle: Chances are that you, Martijn, are not very likely to have a big typo in a title. But what if you did. Would you want it fixed? I would. | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 7:50 | comment | added | DWright | Good point on also fixing the tag. | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 7:50 | history | edited | Martijn Pieters | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 160 characters in body
|
| Jan 8, 2013 at 7:44 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters |
@DWright: That's what tags are for. The post should be tagged with jquery, in that case, and the title reflects the most important tag if not explicitly part of the title already. Fixing the spelling and adding that tag if missing would be a better edit already.
|
|
| Jan 8, 2013 at 7:43 | comment | added | DWright | IMO, this fails to recognize that a potentially useful question and answer may be lost if the question does not look like a jQuery question, but a jQuary question. What about searchability? How will this question be found in future? Misspellings in the question body are one thing, and misspellings of non-key words in the title are one thing. But misspellings of the very subject matter of the question? | |
| Jan 8, 2013 at 7:39 | history | answered | Martijn Pieters | CC BY-SA 3.0 |