Possible Duplicate:
Could we have the ability to mark a change as minor in questions or answers?

Often I've been tempted to make minor adjustments to posts, such as minor spelling or grammar changes. I've not changed them because of the no-minor-edits rule. I don't think they're worth gaining any rep, but they're easy to fix once I've noticed them.

On a wiki I use, there is a "minor edit" check box next to the submit button for an edit. If you check it, no emails are sent to those watching the page.

I propose a "minor edit" check box next to the "Save Edits" button. The system would check that the edit is small, and no points would be awarded. Minor edits would not move the question to the front page.

Benefit: cleaner, clearer posts.

The only disadvantage I can think of is that this would cause more work for reviewers. On the other hand, it would be easier to review edits that were marked as minor by the author. As a side proposal, you might allow unreviewed minor edits at say 1000 or 1500 rep.

  • 1
  • @blahdiblah I missed that :(. It is identical, except that I'm saying that rep is not offered for minor changes.
    – walrii
    Sep 29, 2012 at 0:28
  • 1
    If you can come up with a system for minor edits that addresses the various objections/problems brought up in those posts then I'm sure that people would be happy to consider it. The basic goal of making it easier to make posts better, even if only a bit, is certainly a good one.
    – blahdiblah
    Sep 29, 2012 at 0:31
  • I am selling [Product XYZ], and I claim that it is the most awesome thing since the invenetion of the computer. Are yous saying I should be allowed to edit any post saying "[Product XYZ] is the solution!" amd not let anyone notice the edit? Great! Anyone who finds this question on Google will buy my software!
    – yoozer8
    Sep 29, 2012 at 1:26
  • @jim I did not advocate no notices, nor no reviews. And I would expect the system to reject as not-minor a 20 character change.
    – walrii
    Sep 29, 2012 at 4:28
  • This is the kind of edits we are afraid of. stackoverflow.com/review-beta/suggested-edits/687660 Some "minor edits" are minor just beause they don't fix the other problems in the post.
    – Bo Persson
    Sep 29, 2012 at 8:52

1 Answer 1


Historically, this feature's been rejected because we don't want minor edits.

If you're in there changing things, fix everything.

  • maybe Some Capitalization and speling is the only thing wrong with the post. Sep 29, 2012 at 0:24
  • I agree with this, and I would do that. I suppose I'm talking about posts where only a minor change is needed.
    – walrii
    Sep 29, 2012 at 0:25
  • 2
    @NSPostWhenIdle and walrii, if your edit is the one bringing the post to the state of sublime perfection, then it's probably fine to consider that a significant edit.
    – blahdiblah
    Sep 29, 2012 at 0:27
  • Recently I've found on the cs SE a cs theorist putting very high level (i.e. cutting edge scientific results) content here, but without literals and with deficient punctuation. In most cases, such experts communicate in a perfect grammar, but he seems to be an exception, and he can have many, to be tolerated reason to do that. I would be glad to fix his posts in a big editing job, but it was stopped by the power users because of the minor edit bumping problem.
    – peterh
    Sep 6, 2015 at 23:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .