1

This question already has an answer here:

Often code mistakes are only 1-3 characters but completely invalidate the code if uncorrected.

Are the reasons for this restriction in regular edits documented and well known?

Do these reasons apply to coding corrections (esp. by original author)?

Is there a reason we have this unfiltered restriction on code primary stacks like Stack Overflow?

Is this feasible to change?

marked as duplicate by Sonic the Reinstate Monica-hog, Shog9 feature-request May 13 at 23:56

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • @Mark As per the FAQ How do suggested edits work?, the opinion of the SE team is that 99.9% of the time there's something else that could use revision; they've decided to ignore the 0.1% of edge cases where there's nothing else to improve. It's also worth noting that as they require the same reviewer effort and award the same amount of rep, it's not fair to users who suggest much more substantive changes. – Sonic the Reinstate Monica-hog May 13 at 23:51
  • It's likely a duplicate but none of them came up when searching the text of the error: “Edits must be at least 6 characters” nor "Edits must be at least 6 characters; is there something else to improve in this post?" – Chris Rudd May 13 at 23:52
  • Which is alright; as this question shows up in the results now, it will serve as a signpost for users searching for that. – Sonic the Reinstate Monica-hog May 13 at 23:52
  • 1
    @SonictheInclusiveHedgehog While that may be true on rpg and server stacks, it's absolutely not true on coding stacks. I have independently ran into this at least 3 times in less than 20 questions and that's after all the other corrections people have made. Code mistakes are commonplace and regularly need tiny corrections. I would posit this rule should be excluded for to CODE stacks specifically. (Note: I think you were simply relaying another opinion not expressing your own so try not to take the comment as directed at you) – Chris Rudd May 13 at 23:55
  • Maybe we could add a second line to the error... "Take this opportunity to write some documentation for the code" (none of this applies to folks with full edit rights though, meaning original authors never encounter this error) – Shog9 May 13 at 23:55
  • 2
    @Shog9 I think you're on the right track but after reading the other questions I actually had a better idea: Change the error to "Edits must be at least 6 characters for users under 2000 reputation; is there something else to improve in this post?" I think that would go a long way to solving this question being constantly repeated, since it sounds like it's a universal rule rather than specifically applying to someone new who may not know this opens up at higher reputation (like I did) – Chris Rudd May 13 at 23:59
  • I like that idea – Shog9 May 14 at 6:47
  • @SebastianSimon Since this is now marked as a duplicate of a "status-declined" post, do you have a suggestion about how we should post this new request (since we've changed the scope from a mechanics change to a conveyance change)? – Chris Rudd May 14 at 18:11

Browse other questions tagged .