I have been informed in the comments at carry over user entered carriage returns from message box and sent in email, that I shouldn't use the comments to inform posters about why I made the edits I made.
In particular, I used
I have edited your title. Please see, "Should questions include “tags” in their titles?", where the consensus is "no, they should not".
Instead, I have been asked to use the edit description for this information. My problem with that is that nobody reads the edit description. My intention with the comments is to inform the poster of the reason for the edit, in hopes that he won't do the same thing in the future, and also to inform other readers of the same thing.
So, I'd like to find out what [meta] thinks about this. Am I abusing the comments?
Since the comments have now been deleted, here is a screenshot:
I just came across an example of something, but I'm not sure which.
I just came across a question with both a "appreciated", and a signature, edited them, and left my comment. The comment app I use displays how long the user has been on the site, and I noticed that this user had been here for four years.
This made me look at the user's questions. Every single one of them had a signature, "thanks", "appreciated", or "tags". Every single one. Yet I had apparently managed not to notice them for four years.
I don't know if this is proves
- signatures and such aren't so bad (because I didn't even notice them for four years), or
- that by not editing and commenting his posts, this user has continued for four years to believe that "appreciated as always" is actually a good idea! The thanks got more profuse as time went by!