The current wording on the too minor suggested edit reason is

Too minor: This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.

But I believe the majority of suggestions rejected under this reason aren't rejected because the edits are too small per se but because they leave in other glaring errors.


I might accept a suggested edit to correct a glaring typo in the title or indented the code if the remainder of the question is good, but I would reject (or improve if appropriate) a suggested edit that corrected the title typo or code indentation but left the rest of the question in an obviously horrible state.


So its not just the size of the edit (although that is a consideration) but also the percentage of the errors corrected that is considered. So I would propose changing the wording to;

Too minor: This edit is too minor or fails to address the majority of issues with the post; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.

  • Too minor == not major enough, and currently major enough == fixing al visible problems. For me it's OK already.
    – Mołot
    Oct 3 '13 at 11:48
  • 1
    Its your second equation where I think things get a bit squiffy Oct 3 '13 at 11:50
  • 1
    I think it would be tricky to walk the line between making it more descriptive while not causing it to be too specific for many current uses. Oct 3 '13 at 11:50
  • @RichardTingle That's why it's only a comment - it's how I see it, not something I propose as "solution" or anything.
    – Mołot
    Oct 3 '13 at 11:55

I've thought of this as well, but my feeling is the wording on most everything on the site is intentionally vague to avoid having to change things as the community's attitudes change. What if 6 months from now (which is unlikely) the community decides that "too minor" actually means "too minor".

My opinion is it would be better described in a meta post about editing and reviewing that the community can edit as its attitudes change.

You can then include a link in the suggested edit reject message to that meta post (or another community editable source) so if the editor is truly interested in what it means in more detail, they can click it to learn more.

  • While this is true, the reject reasons are (sort of) canned responses, this ommission causes about 90% of my custom "other" reasons because I don't like to give vague responses. Including this within the canned reasons would speed up my reviewing considerably Oct 3 '13 at 11:32
  • 2
    @RichardTingle Not arguing that point either. Maybe the solution is linking the edit message to an appropriate meta post or other community editable source to explain in more detail what it means. Oct 3 '13 at 11:33
  • Hello from autumn 2014! This is still a problem.
    – djechlin
    Aug 30 '14 at 19:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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