Is it a good idea to either drop requirement for a limit of 6 character for edits, or drop the ability to edit for users under 2K?

Question

I have just attempted to make my first edit of another user's post - correcting a reference to a single-letter class name, which otherwise could throw a novice (see paercebal's answer in In C++, what is a virtual base class?).

I was then confronted with the "6 letter limit" for edits because my reputation is below 2K.

Trying to understand the reason for the 6-character limit, I have found and scavenged the following threads: Legitimate edits of less than 6 characters, Change this behavior to allow for spelling corrections and the like: "Edits must be at least 6 characters", How to overcome "Edits must be at least 6 characters"?, Allow under 6 character changes if they are inside code tags, and Suggestion: Allow 1-char edits, if they are within the code block.

These threads are filled with people who disagree with the rule and provide tips and tricks for workarounds. One of these "tips and tricks" is the "accepted answer" for the third link I just gave, which is a question about how to overcome the 6-character limit. Here is the relevant quote from the answer:

look for other changes that can be made

It should go without saying that this is not an answer to my question.

Of the links above, there is only one reference to a justification (that I can find). It says (see comment beneath second question linked above):

The limitations imposed on low-rep editors are largely there to discourage incomplete edits

Is this rationale based on experience - that (without the requirement) users below 2K would otherwise tend to overload the system with edits below 6 characters that are trivial or incomplete, such as the fixing of typos, but otherwise tend to make good edits (when over 6 characters), such that simply removing the ability for users under 2K to edit would detract from the community?

Is it really true that for users under 2K, it is known that edits under 6 characters tend to be incomplete, but that edits over 6 characters tend to be complete?

If so, I understand the requirement. But in this case I would like to recommend that StackExchange add an "orange box" at the top of the "edit" page, appearing only when the editor's reputation is below 2K and only when the number of characters in the edit is less than 6, that says something like:

Edits must be a minimum length of 6 characters for users with a reputation below 2K. This is to discourage incomplete or trivial edits. If you have a legitimate edit of less than 6 characters and your reputation is below 2K, please add a comment, which will be received by the post's author.

On the other hand, if the "incomplete" rationale is not justified, can StackExchange please either remove the 6-character limitation, or simply remove the ability of users under 2K to make edits?

Quite obviously, for highly popular code-oriented sites such as StackOverflow, code edits can be critical, and the length of the edit has no bearing on its legitimacy.

I suspect that the reason this issue has not been attended to is that most people who develop the StackExchange sites, and other users who make frequent edits, have reputations higher than 2,000. In my opinion, to the extent that this is true, this is not a justification to maintain an unnecessary and/or unhelpful requirement for users whose reputation is below 2K (that is, if I'm correct that the requirement is unnecessary and/or unhelpful).

Can something please be done about this? I have taken the time to write this post after running into this issue in order to help the StackExchange sites, so I hope someone else can follow through and recommend that something be changed.

Answer 1

My suggestion would be that the character count shouldn't be checked when any change is made inside a code snippet (either inline or block)... even a single character there can produce dramatically different results, in nearly any language.

Since <2k edits are going into a queue for review anyway, I think that's the only change needed.

In the meantime, you definitely should leave a comment on any post that contains an error if you can't fix it yourself.

Of course, this has already been proposed:

• Suggestion: Allow 1-char edits, if they are within the code block
• Allow under 6 character changes if they are inside code tags

---

Please note that I'm not expressing an opinion for or against allowing low rep users to edit code... just that the number of characters changed is a useless metric of whether a change is trivial, when the change occurs in code.

Answer 2

Indeed. The arbitrary limits and hard coded regulations on edits have a very annoying effect on editors wishing to help other people.

Just let people edit and let the community moderate itself like it always has.

Answer 3

As you have probably seen, the 6-character limit is completely asininearbitrary, so you should feel morally in the clear to abuse it by making pointless edits just to exceed the character limit.

One popular solution is to link to the Wikipedia page for one of the concepts in the text.

Answer 4

Everyone has their excuses, but In my humble opinion, Trivial edits(formatting, spelling, grammar, etc.) are more appropriate than non-trivial edits.

Otherwise you risk changing the meaning of the post to something that the author didn't intend.

Answer 5

The 6-character minimum is arbitrary, just like the 30-character minimum for new answers or the 15-character minimum for comments.

They're based on the belief that, generally-speaking, doing something worthwhile requires a minimal amount of effort. It's pretty easy to find examples that violate this rule, and just as easy to find examples that support it. All things being equal, it rarely hurts to write more...

It's somewhat harder to hit the 2K reputation mark that makes minimum edit lengths irrelevant. But worth it.

Answer 6

I would say the system worked as it should. Code Edits are generally frowned upon for anything more than cleaning up the formatting. If you see a problem with the code, you should leave a comment so that the poster can verify and fix, or explain why it is not a problem.

EDIT: Incorrect code: Edit, comment, or provide a correct answer? I would like to point out it is a gray area and that is why I said generally.

The problem is that when you do not have enough rep to do it yourself, and it goes through the suggested edit review queue. I can tell you personally, when I see a code edit to an answer, and the answer was posted by a high rep user I tend to decline it. Rationale being that the high rep users are generally active on the site, and if the editor left a comment pointing out the problem, they would fix it or explain why their answer is correct.

Answer 7

When a user with less than 2k reputation suggests an edit, the idea is that they should not just be fixing one problem with the post; they should fix all of the problems with that post. This limit is targeted towards what are clearly small fixes for single, narrowly scoped problems, and those are not encouraged by the system. When someone is fixing all of the problems with a post it should involve editing more than 6 characters.

The reason for this is that the suggested edits need to be reviewed, and those reviews consume time and effort of multiple (2-5+) higher reputation users. Filling the queue with lots of small edits ends up consuming much more of their time, which could be spent on more valuable edits (or other types of reviews).

Other costs with small edits are that, from the time the edit is suggested until the review is complete the post is locked. If someone else would like to make a substantive edit but there is a very minor pending edit the substantive edit can't be made. Additionally there is a limit of 200 pending suggested edits for the entire site at any one time. If the system is flooded with lots of very minor edits the queue can end up sitting at capacity and thus preventing anyone from suggesting edits to any posts. This is less of a problem now, with some of the changes to the review system (instead of constantly sitting near capacity during peek hours; it's usually sitting pretty low) but it's still a concern.

As for what you should do; it's fairly simple:

1. If you notice a small problem with a post that doesn't involve editing more than 6 characters, first be sure that there are no other problems with the post. If you can find any other problems you should fix them. Don't just change things that aren't wrong though; your edits should be correct and improvements.
2. If you still haven't edited 6 characters you can comment on that post. Describe the small fix that needs to be made. Either the OP, or another 2k+ user who comes along can make that edit. If the change isn't important enough that you feel it's worthy of a comment, then clearly it's fine to leave it. You can delete your comment if/when the change is made.
3. You can wait until you have 2k+ reputation to make such changes. Note that even if you have 2k reputation you should still strive to fix all problems with a post when you edit it, but this isn't enforced nearly as much as with <2k users.