In an edit review, I stuck with this edit.

The user has replaced an URL by a placeholder in his question and tried to adapt all the answers, some with success.

My question is, to what extent are these changes good, allowed, much meaning or striking?

up vote 5 down vote accepted

This edit is bad and was correctly rejected.

The edit does not add any value to the post or improve it in any way. At best, it is "too minor". At worst, it is actually detrimental, as it replaces what was a validly formatted link with something that is not.

If one was going to replace the URL with a "placeholder" (e.g. because it revealed proprietary information or was unnecessary spammy), she should use the canonical example URL: http://www.example.com/.

But I would still consider that to be "too minor", unless it was coupled with some other substantial edits.

  • 4
    That's weird - how this got approved? – Shadow Wizard Jul 25 '13 at 12:09
  • @ShaWizDowArd I think the OP itself Approved it. – Luv Jul 25 '13 at 12:11
  • @Luv no, it would have been listed. – Shadow Wizard Jul 25 '13 at 12:11
  • @ShaWizDowArd Oh, not that bug again... – michaelb958 Jul 25 '13 at 12:14
  • My first suspicion was, he wants to rule out a suspected spam because he has other replies with that address and customize the answers fitting to his question. – bummi Jul 25 '13 at 12:15

An alternative view, if it pleases you.

I asked a similar question where OP is editing answers because he changed variable names in post. It didn't get that much attention though.

I do somewhat agree with Gilles' view (here and here) that the edit should be allowed for consistency sake. To quote

It's still better to keep the answers consistent with the question. If there's no abuse (e.g. asker keeps changing his names again and again, or adds profanity), I'd go along with the flow.

  • Well, I guess I agree regarding consistency. But then I would say that all of the edits were bad and should have been rejected. Then they'd still be consistent. – Cody Gray Jul 25 '13 at 12:14
  • Yeah, I guess one uglier alternative would be rolling back all the edits, even on the question itself. – Old Checkmark Jul 25 '13 at 12:14

You must log in to answer this question.

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