43

I've thought about proposing this for a while. It would be very easy to make or curate "too minor" review audits. Chances are, many of them are approved. I don't know how big of a problem it is for too many review items to be approved, but then I see items like this, and think this probably happens way to much.

So proposal is to add "too minor" audits in addition to the spammy fake text ones. Picking audits shouldn't be hard - how about ones that were unanimously rejected as "too minor" and where the diff is fewer than 5 characters (since yes, these exist I think in abundance).

Note another advantage is this gives us genuine reviews in the audit queue at all. The fake ones have some efficacy but I've seen people complain about them on various meta-threads, to a greater extent than say, audit close questions.

Note: the linked edit actually breaks the code by dropping a {. All the more egregious it went approved; however I imagine the reviewers didn't notice the breaking change since they approved it... which more or less means they either 1) didn't read at all or 2) saw a tiny formatting diff and approved it instead of rejecting as too minor. So, more complicated but, still case in point.

20
+50

My suggestions (both 'too minor' and others): (just one of these per edit)

  • Make a random word or two bold.
  • Add "Thanks in advance" to the end.
  • Replace a random word with a synonym.
  • Run a simple spell-checker to find posts that have at least a few spelling mistakes (in none-code, obviously) and only fix one of them.
  • Increase indentation of all code (by say 1 character). Decreasing indentation could also work, but not too much, as that could make a good edit.
  • Add "I'm having the same problem" to the end of a post.
  • Add "[SOLVED]" to the end of the title.
  • Add "with {tag}" to the end of the title (assuming the title doesn't already contain the tag).
  • Change one of the links to something that's clearly spam.
  • More advanced - Remove one of the tags and replace it with a completely different tag (e.g. Java and PHP or C and Windows).
  • Capitalize a word at the start of a line.

Preferably pick shortish (but not too short) posts for these, as we don't want users to spend forever to find the difference, given that it's only a review.

Side note:

IMO, the correct behaviour to some of these would be to click Improve and untick "The suggested edit was helpful". So clicking Improve should not cause the review to fail, you should only fail after improving the post if "The suggested edit was helpful" was ticked.

Preferably the edit should still take effect regardless (fail or not), as you may have spent quite some time fixing it up.

Or Improve should classify as a pass for some of them, I'm not sure.

  • 4
    One more: replacing an image (e.g. screenshot) in the question to a cat image – Alvin Wong Nov 1 '13 at 1:24
0

I posted this as an addition to my other question here. Posting here, with a bounty for additional attention. I think this would go a long way to help remove the trivial edits that needlessly bump posts to the front page like this or this.

In addition, I think example rejected edits for trivial changes, ie. just bolding/coding words, spacing changes, destructive edits, incorrect grammar changes, or unnecessary grammary changes should be added to a review queue as audits. The system could simply detect changes on 3 reject posts, and check to see if only (`, ** has changed), and add that as an audit. I feel like the current suggested edits audits are almost useless currently, only stopping the most egregious spam clicks.

You must log in to answer this question.

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