I want to enable minor edits and I think might have gotten close enough to how to do it right to talk about it here. I'll try not to waste your time.
Add up all the costs of minor edits; it's more than they're worth. They pollute the edit-date flag (that's bad enough) plus other substantial pollution like edit history and front-page bumps and misdirected rep. That last seems not so substantial.
Is that all the showstoppers?
To make minor edits worth enabling, all those costs, plus any new ones introduced, have to be reduced so they all add up to less than the value of a single minor edit. An example of an introduced cost would be that not bumping self-described minor edits is an obvious temptation.
But I think everybody sees that if it could be done, the whole place could look just a little bit brighter. Fixing little glitches, a stutter-step hit to reading concentration or a minor derailment makes it more apparent that there are standards around here; it affords the discreet small mercy of quietly eliminating someone's minor embarrassment; it lightens later readers' jobs just a little bit ... I guess if that's not an attractive enough prospect then it isn't. 'nuff said.
So I came here to propose almost exactly this way of addressing minor edits, but with perhaps enough handling differences that may eliminate distractions to justify reconsideration. They are:
- Edit submission speedbump elimination:
- A separate "Minor edit" submit button, otherwise exactly like the "Save Edits" button.
- Edit review speedbump elimination:
- Minor edit reviews presented after substantial edits, with a "Minor Edits Follow" button step to separate them
- "Obviously minor"/"Not obviously minor" reject button that notifies submitter and needs only one vote
- Edits submitted as minor present only the containing paragraph for review
- Edit history display speedbump elimination:
- Last minor edit date presented separately in much smaller type below last edit date.
- "Show me minor edits" checkbox
One blemish I can see is the near certainty that some edits will be serially rejected as both obviously minor and not obviously minor. Perhaps the rejection notice could be:
This proposed edit is [not] obviously minor. Please reclassify it or improve it before submitting again. If this proposed edit has been rejected as both "obviously minor" and "not obviously minor", we're sorry, but we just don't know what to do with it.
Even clearly correct grammatical improvements/corrections perhaps should be submitted as minor edits, but in particular substantial rewords that are clear improvements should be accepted in either classification.
(Some obvious minor improvements could flesh out the above, e.g. a vim-style fold line around the presented minor-edit context and so on)
So, I hope the skeleton merits fleshing out, but either way thanks for your consideration.