When people make small edits that don't impact content, the edit still causes the question to show on the front page. Also, if someone wants to make a change that is less than five characters, they have to add a larger change to make the edit go through (example: here; a one letter change plus replacing a word with a less accurate word). Both of these are bad behaviors.

One possible fix would be to split the edit queue into two pieces. In one of the pieces, regular edits would go. This would be the equivalent of the current queue. Minor edits (as marked by the original editor or one of the reviewers) would go into the other piece. Minor edits will allow the editor to bypass the six character minimum. If an edit is approved from the minor edit queue, it does not refresh the front page and might not give reputation to the editor (I can go both ways on that).

This would allow people to make small changes without clogging the main edit queue or the front page of the site. This would also avoid people making the question worse in order to fix a trivial problem. Supposedly that should get caught in review but does it? I found at least one case where it didn't.


1 Answer 1


Minor edits are something that we don't want, even less so from <1k users. The whole idea behind the suggested edits review queue is that new users learn and understand how to edit, what to edit, and when to edit.

enter image description here

In fact, this rejection reason exists to discourage new users from making the very type of 2-3 character edits such as capitalisation and punctuation (mixed with other unnecessary changes to cross the six-character limit), which do not add any value to the post.

Once users gain the necessary reputation points which grants them the edit privilege, then they may choose to perform such edits as they do not end up cluttering the queue and taking up other people's time. However, the fact that they should have by now understood that minor edits are generally not acceptable, means that they will too, edit posts only when they are adding value by addressing multiple issues.

Minor edits (as marked by the original editor or one of the reviewers) would go into the other piece. Minor edits will allow the editor to bypass the six character minimum.

Your feature request asks to make this type of editing legitimate, something that is undesirable for Stack Overflow.

  • Even if such edits did not make the post go back to the main page, you would still be cluttering up a queue full of trivial edits which add no value to the site and waste reviewers' time. Time, that could have been otherwise well spent on value additions to the site.

  • Also, if these are made out to be legitimate edits, there would be a explosion of these on Stack Overflow as almost every post has 1-2 characters worth of editing to go in it. Be it a space, a missing punctuation mark, or anything else. So, we would end up pretty quickly with a queue full of 1k to 2k reviews (conservative estimate) waiting to be done, most of them useless.

  • Thirdly, an excellent training opportunity for new users to properly understand the review system and to use editing privileges with some degree of responsibility would be lost. As edits by 1k+ users would still go directly to the home page, attempting to solve one "problem" would cause a much bigger much worse problem.

Also, if your next is about allowing 1k+ users to make edits which do not go to the home page, then that is a bad idea. That would essentially be opening up Stack Overflow to vandalism and spam all over (a user could easily edit in adverts into old popular posts without anyone knowing).

  • Well, if you don't value the contributions that I would like to make, perhaps I should just stop contributing. Do you really think that you can force people to be like you? The best you can do is force people to be like you or leave. This proposal separates tiny edits you don't like from larger edits that you do. It allows people to choose the kind of edits that they can do. If no one wants to review minor edits then the process would stay the same as now, minor edits would be effectively prohibited. If people do process these edits, then there is obviously a demand for them.
    – Brythan
    Aug 3, 2013 at 3:29
  • There's an easy solution to the 1k users. Make their minor edits go into the minor edit queue. If they use the minor edit feature, they lose their auto-approval.
    – Brythan
    Aug 3, 2013 at 3:33
  • @Brythan If a post has spelling + grammar + punctuation + formatting errors, we do not want people to "choose" one type of problem and solve that and leave the rest. We want one person to solve all the problems. If one person solves all the issues, you are using up the time of 1 editor + 3 reviewers. If 4 different people solve it, you end up using the time of 4 + 12 people to solve a problem. How is that a good use of anybody's time?
    – asheeshr
    Aug 3, 2013 at 3:39
  • In regards to the training issue, I think that you overvalue it. Since there is no feedback on reviews, they don't train new users at all. At least with downvotes, it's possible to comment and explain. It's difficult to determine if a suggested edit was accepted or rejected; you have to manually watch the post to see if it updates. I wonder how many times a user attempts to edit the same content a second time? Of course, since I believe that your existing rules lead to bad habits (people making larger edits to bypass the minor edit blocks), I am inclined to value this training lightly.
    – Brythan
    Aug 3, 2013 at 3:47
  • Then the rejection should be "Didn't solve all the problems" and should be visible to the editor (a training opportunity!). Not, "too minor". The current system requires a major edit to fix a single problem on posts that are both light on errors and those which are heavy. I've already passed up editing a post with errors because I couldn't see a bigger change that I wanted to make with it.
    – Brythan
    Aug 3, 2013 at 3:58
  • Note that the system won't even let you submit edits that are less than 6 characters. So the 2-3 character edits you're talking about don't even exist in practice, except from users who have full editing privileges and are rightfully immune from these arbitrary criteria. Aug 3, 2013 at 4:23
  • @Brythan You can all your suggested edits here gaming.stackexchange.com/users/51171/… If you want direct inbox notifications of edit approvals/rejections, then you can make a separate feature-request.
    – asheeshr
    Aug 3, 2013 at 4:29
  • But that doesn't tell me why it was rejected. It makes it a little easier to tell what I edited in the past, but it doesn't tell me what the rejected edits were (although it is sort of possible to work that out by clicking through to the edit history) or why they were rejected.
    – Brythan
    Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40
  • @Brythan do you want a summary of the rejection reasons used by the reviewers? Aug 3, 2013 at 4:44
  • @Brythan As this discussion has deviated entirely from the original issue, and it seems that you have a lot of problems/suggestions about the interface, why dont you start a separate discussion listing your problems, and lets see if they can be worked out.
    – asheeshr
    Aug 3, 2013 at 4:47
  • 1
    What if all minor edits went to the review queue? There would be many, but they would be really easy to verify (correct/not correct/not minor). Also, I believe most would be by <2k users, so reviewing >2k users' edits wouldn't bloat the queue. Aug 3, 2013 at 4:47
  • 1

You must log in to answer this question.

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