Timeline for Are we discouraged from fixing typos and misspellings on Stack Exchange sites?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2014 at 13:29 | comment | added | Jonathan Drapeau | I hate to review edits that miss some obvious formatting or other improvements for the sake of spelling mistakes. If you can't improve a whole answer/questions, don't edit it. I see too many of these on SO. | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 4:09 | comment | added | Dan Dascalescu | @JeffAtwood: I've tried the "improve the whole post" method, but my edit was rejected because "it changed the original answer too much". As for asking people to get 2K rep to fix a typo - that will miss the vast majority of small edits made by the long tail of users with less than 2K rep. I'm sure you're familiar with the 1% rule. | |
| Sep 27, 2011 at 15:55 | comment | added | Flimzy | @JeffAtwood: I'm sure that is true more often than not. :) | |
| Sep 27, 2011 at 15:53 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @flim in my experience, it causes users to think about improving the whole post rather than getting tunnel vision about some tiny trivial thing. | |
| Sep 27, 2011 at 15:15 | comment | added | Flimzy | @JeffAtwood: The problem with this philosophy is it encourages people to fix non-problems. If the sentence is "Do you prefer apples are oranges?" and the only real problem is s/are/or/, then someone will change it to "Do you like apples or oranges better?" Which isn't really an improvement (except for the s/are/or/), adds noise, and actually detracts from the statement. I know I'm guilty of fabricating "fixes" (after reading the entire post and coming up short on real ones) so that my real fix looks substantial enough to get through the silly filters. | |
| Aug 3, 2011 at 11:02 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @rom if you want to make bit-twiddling pointless edits, earn 2k rep for the privilege to do so. Suggested edits take time from peers to review them, so they are held to a higher standard. | |
| Aug 3, 2011 at 10:58 | comment | added | RomanSt | @Jeff Speaking for myself here: while everything else may not be perfect, I do not wish to do that extra editing just to fix the are->or. So you get a "f*ck it" from me and the "are" remains. Which I'm sure you're perfectly happy with. | |
| Aug 3, 2011 at 1:15 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @trig and everything else in the post was so perfect that it could not also be improved? | |
| Aug 3, 2011 at 0:44 | comment | added | TRiG | @Jeff. A small number of characters can still be a big edit. Today I saw an are which should have been an or. That's big. It matters. It really hurts readability. It's three characters. | |
| May 9, 2011 at 13:54 | comment | added | Timwi | @Jeff: What steps have you undertaken to find out whether your philosophy does more good or more harm? | |
| May 9, 2011 at 11:18 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | when it comes to suggesting edits, go big, or go home. That's my philosophy. Home is nice too. | |
| May 9, 2011 at 10:09 | history | edited | RomanSt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 228 characters in body
|
| May 9, 2011 at 10:03 | history | answered | RomanSt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |