As I understand, the reasons for discouraging too minor edits are that they can swamp the review queue, and block the post from actual improvement edits. Still, I often see edits that just change "i'm" to "I'm", which I reject.

But the thing is that the damage is already done: it is taking space in the queue and blocking the edits; and it is certainly improving the post (even thought very slightly). So, I suggest a new rejection reason: Too minor, but valid.

These changes are simple to spot, so only two reviewers should be enough, so we get them out of the way quickly. They do improve the post, so they will be applied; but to not encourage the behaviour, the editor will not get the reputation and it will count as a rejected edit.

  • 1
    You can always use 'improve' and uncheck the 'helpful' box. – Martijn Pieters Aug 12 '14 at 12:08

Too minor already indicates it is valid. Else it would have been an Invalid edit. When improving the post, can edit the post at will, leaving the Helpful checkbox checked or unchecked depending on the usefulness of the edit.

Hence, I see no need for your feature request.

| improve this answer | |
  • Do users still get +2 reputation if an edit was approved, but not helpful? – jmiserez Aug 12 '14 at 13:18
  • 2
    Not helpful = no. It counts as a declined suggested edit. – Patrick Hofman Aug 12 '14 at 13:19
  • 1
    @JeremieMiserez Yup, what Patrick said. Not Helpful is a rejection. – Andrew Barber Aug 12 '14 at 13:21
  • @AndrewBarber Thanks, I wasn't able to find this information anywhere. – jmiserez Aug 12 '14 at 13:23
  • @PatrickHofman Good to know that. Maybe it should be more advertised, maybe I haven't read the docs carefully enough. – Davidmh Aug 12 '14 at 20:14

You must log in to answer this question.

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