Here are two examples:

  1. This edit was rejected, although I think it was actually appropriate (You don't have to be a compsci student to know that true && false == false), so I made the edit afterwards on my own.
  2. This edit was accepted, although it edits the code block inside the question. I thought about reverting the post, but as that part of the question is actualy irrelevant (meaning the problem was not within that code block), I kept it so.

So the question is: was it okay for me to edit the first post, after it was rejected? Would it be okay to revert the second post after it was accepted? Is there a guide on what to do in these cases?


I think you did the right thing. The rejection was incorrect to begin with; just because an edit is small does not mean it is too minor. This was, after all, a fix of semantics into what the original poster meant. I reserve the "too minor" rejection criteria for edits that does not make the post content better. This edit did.

To clarify: A post may arguably be better by removing "Thanks" and "Aloha!". That does not change the content, however. It is just removing cruft. I too like when cruft gets removed but I do not think that someone should do only that, so I flag those edits as too minor. An good edit should do (correct) formatting, changing errors (note: not changing the original meaning) and/or helping non-English-speakers out.

| improve this answer | |
  • Changing one aspect of a post can make the post content better, but if there are still issues with it then the edit should (in my opinion) be rejected as "too minor". – Anthony Grist Feb 19 '13 at 11:20

Actually, the rejection reasons for the first suggested edit are three:

  • The edit is too minor: I would not say it is too minor, since who suggested the edit edited all s/he could edit. If the suggested edit changes to code only part of the code shown in the answer, then it would have been too minor, but it is not so.
  • The edit is invalid: Showing as code what is really code is valid; highlighting words as if they were code, when they are not code would be invalid (e.g. changing this example to this example).
  • The edit changes too much of the post: Maybe this rejecting reason is referring to changing true with false. I would have used that rejecting reason if more than a single word was changed, and the meaning of the answer changed completely. I would have left a comment to who wrote the answer saying that he probably meant false instead of true; since that is not changing the code shown by the user, but the result he was predicting the expression would have, that change is IMO acceptable.

I have noticed that, when the suggested edit has been done from an anonymous user, there is sometimes the tendency to reject suggested edits that are perfectly fine. At least, that is what I noticed in the site where I am moderator.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

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