Addressing users who make many trivial edits

Question

I've seen a case on a site currently in beta where a single user is perhaps editing too much. I obviously don't want to name names or call someone out here, so I won't be too detailed. The edits are generally small, and most are good - typos, spelling corrections, and such. Unfortunately, I think some are too trivial - changing straight quotes "" to slanted/curly quotes “”. Some may even be wrong - analogous to changing "colour" to "color" in a post from an Australian on English Language & Usage. The user has long had enough rep to edit without approval, and at this point has many times more edits than questions or answers; it's enough that (on a relatively low-traffic beta site) the edits can crowd the home page.

I'm sure the user means well, but I think a bit of a change might be in order; my general attitude is that small improvements are improvements, but it's possible to go far, and it's better to edit others' posts too little than too much. What's a good way to address this, preferably something other than a post on the site's meta that obviously calls out a specific user?

Answer 1

I'm one of the top editors on Board and Card Games, which is also relatively low-traffic. I often edit questions for typos, blatant grammar errors, or missing question marks. I do occasionally make single character edits. I don't worry about things like commas, or obscure points of grammar. I'm a pedant, a little obsessive, and mistakes in text grate on me, so probably quite similar to your target user.

Let me try and untangle some of the things going on in your post here.

• Trivial edits are discouraged for users without editing privileges. However, I think the main rationale here is to dissuade rep farming via "bare-minimum" edits, and the consequent burden of a large, trivial edit queue. In many cases, there is more that can be improved, and we want to encourage editors to ideally fix the whole post, if they are going to bother editing at all.

• Different people have different standards for what feels "trivial". You're obviously a little more laid-back, and you probably have lower blood pressure. Great! However, it strikes me as a little odd to be surprised that you have one or more extremely detail-oriented editors (pedants) on a site dedicated to questions of language exactness (pedantry), implemented in a system that encourages and rewards obsessing over details (Stack Exchange). To some extent, we all need to live and let live, even when we disagree.

• Some edits are unambiguously incorrect, and should be rejected or flagged. For example, I don't think it's ever acceptable to change spellings from British to American English, or vice versa. Similarly, some edits for content can cross a line into putting words into other's mouths, or changing the intent of a question, and should clearly be reversed.

• Rollbacks are always an option, and a rollback by an original author should under normal circumstances always be honoured.

• Edits do affect the homepage, but this is clearly by design. It helps draw attention to older questions, and changes to questions and answers, which is valuable in itself. Editors are also rewarded, with badges like Archaeologist, for editing old questions. I'm not sure why "cluttering" of the homepage is a serious problem, but maybe this comes down to individual workflow. I usually just use the Questions tab, so I don't normally see the edit bumping.

• In general, most edits make the site better, and not enough users edit. Anything that discourages edits or users willing to put effort into editing should be weighed against the benefits that such users bring to the site. If 95% of a user's contributions are great, then the site is better off for their presence, even if 5% of the time they could do better.

• Sometimes, heavy-handed editors can come across as domineering and controlling, and that's not ok. If edits are regularly crossing into that territory for you, or you think there's abuse going on, then that's not acceptable and you should get in touch with a moderator.

So my advice would be: relax! It's not a big deal. Let them get on with it, if it makes them happy and is largely positive, and flag edits that strike you as wrong or inappropriate.

Answer 2

A good way to address this? I would suggest, if the user has edit-everywhere privileges, flag the specific post and bring it to a moderator's attention. They'll sort it out from there. If they don't, then reject their edits due to them lacking actual substance.

Answer 3

If the edit is to a fresh post, just leave it. I myself do this often--I piggyback on an existing homepage-bump to make minor edits (note that it is good to wait for the 5-minute grace period to be largely over before doing this)

If not, then you should ask a mod--whether via flagging, or chat (if you don't want to be discreet). First, it is better to try notifying the user--you can @notify any user in the revision history, though the autocomplete only works on t tcommenters. If the user persists, then go bug a mod. On smaller sites, I guess it's OK to just bug a mod first (or ask their opinion on chat without naming names)

Also, you ought to swoop in on the trivial-edit-bump and make it into a substantial edit wherever possible.

Note that trivial edits should always be rejected for users without edit privileges. ALWAYS! ....THEY MUST LEARN!!! {*}

^{*IIRC, opinion is actually divided on this issue--just wanted to push mine ;-)}

Answer 4

I think your issue is not really with the quantity of edits. I think you believe that this particular user may have their personal threshold for what constitutes a worthwhile edit set too low. This is manifested both by a large quantity of edits (which by itself is not a problem) and by some inappropriate edits (which is a problem).

If you flag the inappropriate edits, and this happens repeatedly, that should act as a brake for that user. If it doesn't, well, at least the moderators have been warned.

Answer 5

What's a good way to address this, preferably something other than a post on the site's meta that obviously calls out a specific user?

I don't think there is a better way than to open a question on the meta site. Instead of making the question focused on that single user, you can make it focused on those type of edits, but still using the edits of that user as example. In this way, other users would learn what they should be doing.

Changing the style used in the question, such as when merely changing it from American English (where the comma following a quote is written inside the quotation marks), to British English (where the comma is written outside the quotation marks) or vice versa, is not what I consider a primary edit. Still, if the edit doesn't pump too much old questions on top of the front page, there is few damage done.