I'm aware of this etc.…

However why are we discouraged to fix minor mistakes that could make answers and questions so much more readable and understandable? It seems an efficient thing to do and a frequent request, so could we please make space for it? Maybe a 'minor edit' category without reputation benefits or something like this could help?

  • 3
    Editors need to learn that they generate more work than they do solve with minor edits. People need to review those minor edits. If we approve such edits we only encourage them. – juergen d Nov 29 '13 at 15:19
  • 3
    Show me your too minor edit, and I'm almost certain there are other things to fix as well. – Bart Nov 29 '13 at 15:24
  • 3
    Because people used to misuse this to fix small things in posts where big things needed fixing, wasting everyone's time. – Pekka Nov 29 '13 at 15:26
  • 1
    You could argue that if your edit makes the question so much more readable and understandable then it isn't minor. – JMK Nov 29 '13 at 15:27
  • 1
    @probablyPekka this for instance doesn't make sense to me. Why do you have to be able to fix big things, that might be beyond your expertise, in order to fix small things that are perfectly within your knowledge? – pandita Nov 29 '13 at 15:32
  • @pandita because every edit needs to be reviewed. And people got sick and tired of edits that would fix minor trivial typos. – Pekka Nov 29 '13 at 15:33
  • @probablyPekka the accepted answer here seems to suggests to allow 1 or five character fixes. Given that this is a fairly geeky site, you would think that there is a possibility to keep these minor changes in line with a dictionary.... – pandita Nov 29 '13 at 15:37
  • Also more in general, may I ask for the exact reason why this question is getting downvoted? – pandita Nov 29 '13 at 15:37
  • Because it has been discussed many times before (as you acknowledge)? Because people disagree with the premise? Because it's essentially a feature request? (See the section on voting here) Can be a whole bunch of things. – Bart Nov 29 '13 at 16:07
  • 2
    When you get enough rep, you can make minor edits without anyone having a say in the matter.... – user1228 Nov 29 '13 at 19:38

Every edit made by a user below 2k requires three 2k+ users to review it. It's important to make it worth it.

That said if a post is otherwise perfect and I get a "minor edit" I will usually approve it. It's only when there are still other problems left in the post that I reach for the reject/not helpful. So if the edit is going to be small make sure it is at least complete

  • 5
    Agreed with this. To me, it's more about doing the job completely, regardless of how large or small it is. The little edits that only fix a small part of a post with many problems are the ones that we need to discourage. – Mansfield Nov 29 '13 at 15:25
  • @Mansfield I actually suggested a wording change to better describe that sentiment – Richard Tingle Nov 29 '13 at 15:27
  • Why avoiding having people to help you doing the big fix by letting them doing small things, and again without reputation gain or anything.... – pandita Nov 29 '13 at 15:33
  • @pandita Editor reviewers have that option by unticking "helpful" and editing but really we'd like people to do a full job and walk away with their +2. There are only so many of us 2k+ users (especially as for me at least once I got to 3k+ I started concentrating on the close queue mostly (which is huge!)) – Richard Tingle Nov 29 '13 at 15:35
  • @RichardTingle but isn't then there some scope to increase efficiency? – pandita Nov 29 '13 at 15:39
  • 1
    @pandita Not really, edits need to be approved or else bad edits and spam will get through (a decent amount still does!) and three 2k+ users has been found to be the number nessissary to do it. None of this is a problem if all the problems with a post are fixed – Richard Tingle Nov 29 '13 at 15:47

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