-1

I can't edit posts for a week because I deleted the text. "thanks in advance" from a number of posts. I read a lot about the topic on this site, and I don't think that it's fair.

People rejected the edits in review saying that it is not constructive. However, I read here that it is considered rude to say "thanks in advance" and that the best way to say thanks is to upvote the question.

If that is the case, then why do some people allow me to delete "thanks is advance" while others do not?

Improve this question
3
  • 15
    If you only removed thanks, and there was much else wrong with the post, that would by many be considered a too minor edit and rejected. (No idea whether that applies, haven't looked at your suggestions yet.)
    – Daniel Fischer
    Oct 30, 2012 at 14:31
  • 7
    I think most people don't see it as rude to say "thanks in advance".
    – Pekka
    Oct 30, 2012 at 14:59
  • 11
    @Pekka Agree. I guess it's a misconception based on this previous post. I've never seen it as rude myself. Just unnecessary.
    – Bart
    Oct 30, 2012 at 15:01

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
44

All you did was remove thanks from posts, leaving other problems in place. Such edits are too minor and clog up the queue.

When making an edit suggestion, please improve the whole post, and not only remove the 'thank you'.

Generally, count on edit suggestions that only touch one small aspect to be rejected. Note that the too minor rejection reason states this unequivocally:

This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.

Users with editing rights (more than 2000 reputation) can edit "thanks" out without the hassle of the suggested edits queue. The point is that we don't want to burden the queue with small trivial edits and waste reviewers' time.

Improve this answer
37
  • 2
    Why some people accept that edits and other not?It´s because they don´t read and they only wanted point per reviwing
    – Aitul
    Oct 30, 2012 at 14:40
  • 6
    There are a lot of people reviewing suggested edits. There are always people that are not familiar with the way we view such posts here yet, so sometimes such minor edits do get approved.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Oct 30, 2012 at 14:42
  • 7
    @Aitul maybe, but also because not everybody has the same opinion about what is a useful edit.
    – itsbruce
    Oct 30, 2012 at 14:42
  • 5
    Everyone likes your answer but anyone likes my question...this is not fair
    – Aitul
    Oct 30, 2012 at 14:52
  • 2
    @Aitul: Yeah, if you're doing a bunch of lazy, trivial edits something tells me it's not the reviewers who "don't read and only wanted points". If you're doing purely cosmetic edits, the post's grammar and style should be flawless when you're done with it. Otherwise, why are you bothering?
    – McCannot
    Oct 30, 2012 at 15:27
  • 25
    @Aitul It's the people who do accept trivial edits that are the problem. The people who reject them are doing the right thing.
    – Bill the Lizard
    Oct 30, 2012 at 15:35
  • 5
    @BilltheLizard: I'm not a big fan of conflicting directives. We should either categorically state that we don't want "Thanks in Advance" in questions and allow people to edit them out, or state that they're perfectly fine and reject the edits.
    – user102937
    Oct 30, 2012 at 16:45
  • 6
    @RobertHarvey The past discussions have reached a consensus. It's a valid edit to make, as a part of a larger edit, but on it shouldn't be the only edit that you make to a post.
    – Servy
    Oct 30, 2012 at 16:47
  • 4
    @Servy: I'm not a big fan of that directive either. There's more than one editor out there; this is supposed to be a collaborative effort. I've seen that argument made with trivial spelling changes to, and that argument also sucks. If it improves a post, it's a good edit. That's it. If you want to discourage suggested editors, rejecting such edits is a great way to accomplish that.
    – user102937
    Oct 30, 2012 at 16:48
  • 9
    @RobertHarvey I'm in favor of removing "thanks" from posts. If that's all I can find wrong with a post, I'd accept the edit. If the editor is leaving behind a lot of other things that need to be fixed, I'd reject it.
    – Bill the Lizard
    Oct 30, 2012 at 16:51
  • 5
    @RobertHarvey Yes, but I don't always have time to revise an entire post just because someone removed "thanks" and did nothing else.
    – Bill the Lizard
    Oct 30, 2012 at 16:55
  • 3
    @Servy: How easy is this to explain to a new user or a reviewer? Is it intuitive, or counter-intuitive, to have an edit which clearly has community support to be rejected because it is too minor?
    – user102937
    Oct 30, 2012 at 17:09
  • 11
    I'm against giving editors the benefit of the doubt. "Fixing" posts by looking for some consensus on Meta (in this case: remove "thanks"), and then cargo-cultishly editing your way to 2k rep by enforcing that consensus while ignoring the real quality issues in a post feels wrong. It is bound to frustrate good suggested editors who actually put time and effort in fixing stuff while getting the same +2 for their work.
    – Pekka
    Oct 30, 2012 at 17:47
  • 12
    @Pekka: I'm coming around to the idea that clipping "thanks" out of posts with suggested edits, but doing nothing else, is just gaming the system.
    – user102937
    Oct 30, 2012 at 17:51
  • 3
    If the people suggesting edits know what is acceptable, and edit accordingly, but the people reviewing edits don't, and don't review appropriately, then why do we have a review system in the first place? The entire purpose of the review system is so that suggesters don't need to know all of the rules, their suggestions will just be rejected when they're wrong, allowing them to learn as they go through feedback. If you just assume reviewers won't even know how to review properly you may as well remove the entire functionality and only let 2k+ users edit posts.
    – Servy
    Oct 30, 2012 at 19:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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