I recently got to the point where I have enough reputation to review suggested edits.

A common theme that I'm seeing in many of the suggested edits, is that they are (partially) fixing the spelling and grammar of what questions I would consider to be poor quality or unsalvageable.

What is the appropriate action in cases where the edits are partially fixing the spelling or grammar, but not actually improving the quality of the question?

I don't want to approve an edit that's incomplete, but there's no appropriate rejection category either, and I don't feel its worth my time improving an edit on low quality questions.


1 Answer 1


The first rule of editing is:

  1. If you are going to edit a post, make sure you’re substantively improving it.

Relatively minor spelling, grammar or formatting changes are fine, if they result in something of lasting value to the site. If they amount to polishing a turd, then they're a waste of time and effort - the editor's, and now yours.

If the post being edited would still require substantial amounts of work to be acceptable on the site, then reject the edit with the too minor reason:

Suggested Edit rejection reason: No Improvement - This edit does not improve the quality of the post.

  • I agree with what you've said, but i don't feel the "too minor" reason encapsulates that: the edits are often substantive, and not minor, just incomplete and "polishing a turd". Is there a way to add comments to an edit rejection, to clarify that?
    – Manetheran
    Jan 4, 2014 at 3:11
  • 2
    Yes - select "custom" and type in whatever you feel best describes the problem.
    – Shog9
    Jan 4, 2014 at 3:12
  • 1
    Works best if your average wpm is over 130. Jan 4, 2014 at 3:15

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