2

Currently, for the "Suggested Edit" audit, the only things we get are clearly vandalism.

Can we extend this to support "Too Minor" edits also? Obviously, an audit that has a good question with just a typo fix is not good as that should be accepted. What I am getting at is a question that has severe formatting problems and the edit only fixes, say, a typo.

An example would be suggesting to fix a single i->I when there is also big bad tagline and salutation to be cleaned up.

12
  • Could have been "improved" though. There were a lot of things to fixed on the post Apr 12 '13 at 21:17
  • It could have been improved, but I'm trying to say not to use that one as an as it fixes some things, but not all. The other one clearly had some other things wrong with it that could have been fixed. Apr 12 '13 at 21:29
  • I was talking 'bout the second. But I do tend to agree that there should be some audits for that. Apr 12 '13 at 21:35
  • both are arguable, IMO: the second added a tag which might be considered the improvement. So both wouldn't be good for audits.
    – kleopatra
    Apr 12 '13 at 21:41
  • "Too Minor", you mean like suggesting to fix a single i->I when there is also big bad tagline and salutation to be cleaned up?
    – gnat
    Apr 12 '13 at 21:44
  • @gnat Yes, a blatant "Too Minor" like the "Vandalism" audits are. Apr 12 '13 at 21:45
  • hmm makes pretty good sense to me. Wonder why this idea is downvoted. Maybe title of your question doesn't fit, or maybe you miss an example of what you have in mind. Consider editing it
    – gnat
    Apr 12 '13 at 21:48
  • @gnat Is that better? If not, what should I title it? Apr 12 '13 at 21:49
  • 3
    For suggested edit audits, I normally reject as Custom: This is clearly an audit, because they're quite obvious Apr 12 '13 at 21:58
  • 1
    Sometimes these "Too Minor" edits can actually be pretty important - I recently encountered two posts in a single hour (on SO) where there were approximately four syntax errors in the code that would completely break the solution (missing quotes, semi-colons, etc.) and I ended up having either to post the suggested edits as a comment or making grammatical fixes as well to "fudge" the amount edited. Apr 12 '13 at 23:06
  • @ZacharyKniebel I agree, there are situations where an edit should be accepted if there are other problems, but there are also situations where it is blatantly obvious that it should be rejected. That's what I'm getting at. Apr 12 '13 at 23:10
  • @ColeJohnson - I agree with that as well. It's a bit of a quandary. Apr 12 '13 at 23:12