I'm hoping to get rid of the "too minor" edit rejection reason, in favor of a more direct way of indicating edits that fail to significantly improve a post. We're also fixing to warn editors when their edits are rejected. Between the two of these changes, I'm thinking the other rejection reasons are gonna get a whole lot more scrutiny in the near future...
So it seems like this would be a good time to revisit the guidance they provide, both to reviewers and editors.
Here are the existing rejection reasons in order from most-used to least-used, and my commentary on them:
too minor - This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.
As previously mentioned, this should be dropped as an explicit rejection choice, in favor of being implicitly chosen by the system in response to the submission of an alternate edit.
invalid edit - This edit is incorrect or an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post.
This is a great reason hobbled by a terrible name - it is trivially easy to find suggested edits rejected for this reason that are neither incorrect nor an attempt to reply or comment. In practice, folks appear to use this for edits that add information they don't understand; while it is possible that some of these should be rejected for other reasons, the guidance provided by this reason to the editor is then useless. This reason should be restricted to attempts to reply to the post's author, and named accordingly.
radical change - This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost.
Changing the original meaning or intent is a great reason to reject an edit; changing "too much" is terrible guidance - as subjective as "too minor" if not more so. Usage reflects this, with the edits rejected for this reason ranging from those that completely replace the question/answer with one entirely different, to those that make comprehensive grammar corrections. Changing the meaning/intent is the cardinal sin here - the name and guidance should focus on this.
vandalism - This edit introduces spam, defaces the post in some way, or is otherwise inappropriate.
Another excellent reason ruined by making it too broad. Drop the ending "or is otherwise inappropriate".
excerpt not helpful - This edit does not follow any of our tag wiki guidelines and is unlikely to help instruct future visitors in the appropriate use of the tag.
The only problem with this reason (which only appears for tag wiki excerpt edits) is that you have to read a blog post to figure out what sort of "helpfulness" it's talking about. Robert Cartaino suggested an alternate wording that addresses this - we should use it.
wiki not helpful - This edit does not follow any of our tag wiki guidelines and is unlikely to help instruct future visitors in the appropriate use of the tag.
Again, if I have to read a blog post to remember what sort of stuff I'm looking for in a wiki edit then I'm probably going to get it wrong. Needs some short examples of what's good/bad in a tag wiki.
copied content - This edit plagiarizes content from an external source without proper attribution.
This is the least-used rejection reason, which is a shame because it should be getting used all the time on tag wiki edits! In fact, this is probably more important for tag wiki edits than the one directly above. Robert has some good suggestions for improvement here too - we should use them.
I'm not going to suggest my own changes to these just yet (apart from including Robert's); first, I'd like to hear your ideas - and your opinions on whether or not my criticisms merit changes at all. So, thoughts?