6

Sometimes my edits are rejected for no good reason. A good example is when I add a new major tag (like asp.net) to the question, and the edit is rejected for being a too minor edit. Adding an asp.net tag is not a minor edit. Everyone should know that.

By the way, this question does not have anything to do with the one suggested here. The only thing I can think of they have in common are the words "review" and "audit". That question is asking what audit reviews are, but my question is actually a suggestion on having a guideline for reviewing edits, or having an audit of edit reviews.

Note this question only looks similar, but is essentially different: What are review tests (audits) and how do they work?

As opposed to above question, this one is asking if there's a way to review reviews. The goal is the same as review audits (to improve the quality of reviewers), but the mechanism is different. Also, review of reviews is an active mechanism and review audit is a passive mechanism.

To put it simply, let edits be E and reviews be R. Review audits is still reviewing E (except that the E is not a real edit), whereas here I am asking whether there is anything to review R.

|improve this question
  • 3
    Can you post a couple of examples? If there were other things that needed fixing in the post, just adding the tag is too minor. – jonsca Aug 24 '13 at 1:40
  • 2
    A question that is related to asp.net, should be tagged as an asp.net question. Why is that a minor edit? asp.net is a huge category. – ataravati Aug 24 '13 at 1:43
  • 6
    An edit should fix everything that is wrong with the post. It is definitely important to add the tag, I agree with you, but if you are going to take the time to put the tag in, give the post a once-over as well. If you've done all you can, there's no real reason why someone should reject it. – jonsca Aug 24 '13 at 1:46
  • The request for samples is a good one. An edit should be as complete as possible, not the minimal possible. – Nathaniel Ford Aug 24 '13 at 1:47
  • 1
    It is true some edit reviewers are very lax and will accept any edits that are general improvements and some are very strict and want the editor to fix every problem or think a lot of work is due for the 2 points to be earned, but this variability is controlled somewhat by requiring several reviews for each edit. Often 3-5 reviews are examined before the algorithm reaches a decision. – Paul Aug 24 '13 at 1:55
  • My understanding is that some reviewers think that when only a minor edit is needed to the question, you shouldn't even bother with editing it. But, I think most of people who have commented to my question agree that the point of rejecting an edit because of it being too minor is to encourage people to edit as much as they can. – ataravati Aug 24 '13 at 2:01
  • Here is a sample: stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/2784412. This edit was eventually approved, but two people rejected it for being too minor. I had just added an asp.net tag, and there was not much else to edit. – ataravati Aug 24 '13 at 2:05
  • 3
    There's a lot in that question that could be fixed in terms of capitalization and other grammar, I think. – jonsca Aug 24 '13 at 2:13
  • 2
    I don't think anyone would reject an edit for doing too many grammatical improvements. I think you're confusing people that may be "roboreviewing" with those who are actually being conscientious about it. – jonsca Aug 24 '13 at 2:19
  • 4
    Well go for it! At least do what you can when you come across it, I think that's all anyone is really asking. – jonsca Aug 24 '13 at 2:22
  • 1
    @ataravati Yes, and? What’s your point about “editing every question”? That’s what we do on ELU, you know. Almost every question there gets edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting, and general spiffiness. – tchrist Aug 24 '13 at 3:27
  • 1
    @gnat This question has nothing to do with review audits actually. – Old Checkmark Aug 24 '13 at 8:43
  • 2
    No, I mean this question is asking if there's a way to review reviews. The goal is the same as review audits (to improve the quality of reviewers), but the mechanism is different. Also, review of reviews is an active mechanism and review audit is a passive mechanism. – Old Checkmark Aug 24 '13 at 12:07
  • 1
    To put it simply, let edits be E and reviews be R. Review audits is still reviewing E (except that the E is not a real edit), whereas the OP here is asking whether there is anything to review R. – Old Checkmark Aug 24 '13 at 12:09
  • 2
    @gnat No, that's not his interpretation. I would like to know how you think my question is a duplicate of the other question. These two questions have nothing to do with each other. – ataravati Aug 25 '13 at 4:15
9

As the commenters here have argued, improving any grammar/punctuation problems that you see in the post is always a positive improvement, and a good way to ensure that your edit will not be rejected as "too minor" by any of the reviewers. And you should definitely pluck the low-hanging fruit while you're going through the trouble of editing, like removing "thanks" and other signatures/salutations.

But you are still right: adding a major tag like ASP.NET to a question is a major edit and should not be rejected as "too minor". Those reviewers who voted to reject the edit made the wrong call. Please don't let this deter you from continuing to labor in improving the site for everyone!

And to answer the question in your title, shouldn't there be any way of auditing the edit reviews—there is. You've already found it, the proper place is the Meta site. Unfortunately we cannot go back and approve audits that have already been rejected, but we can let you know if you're on the right track or not. And provide some helpful suggestions on how to improve. Which is really the whole point of the suggested edits system, to serve as training wheels for future editors-at-large.

|improve this answer
  • Thank you, Cody Gray! – ataravati Aug 24 '13 at 12:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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