10

At present a low rep user (under 2k) can only make an edit suggestion of more than 6 chars, however when someone has taken the time to find to correct link it is a real shame the correction can help other users!

So I think link fixing should be special cased somehow.

(Also the checkering of a changed link need to be better than other edits, so a page that showed what both the old a new links point to (in frames) could help with the approving processes.)

| improve this question | |
  • 1
    There are plenty of other cases where a fix of < 6 characters could be helpful too - it seems like an arbitrary limitation - is there a good reason for it ? – Paul R May 18 '11 at 8:52
  • 2
    The team's stance about this has been pretty consistent: there's inevitably something else about the post that you can improve to go beyond that magic 6 character limits. Makes sense to me; none of the suggested edits that I see go far enough. – Cody Gray May 18 '11 at 8:58
  • Here's an example where a user wanted to fix a link with a 1 character edit. – Hendrik Vogt May 18 '11 at 12:36
  • That particular user's complaint is that having to make other changes to improve the answer in addition to fixing the link was "wasting his time". I'm not sure I want those type of people making/suggesting edits in the first place. – Cody Gray May 18 '11 at 13:42
  • @Cody - Sorry to hear that. – BryanH May 19 '11 at 16:14
  • @Bryan: Your argument seems to be that your time is valuable, and having to make other edits to improve the quality of the post (beyond a mere 6 character limit, which is not that many) is a "waste of time". You seem to be failing to consider that you waste my time as well in submitting an edit that modifies less than 6 characters. I have to examine that edit, compare the changes you've made, determine if they're positive changes, and approve the edit. And even if you don't care about me, someone else has to do that also. Clearly you think time is valuable, and this isn't free. – Cody Gray May 19 '11 at 23:50
  • And lest my last comment be misinterpreted: I have validated tons of edits. I don't actually think it's a waste of my time, or at least, I'm more than willing to dedicate that time to improving this site (the same reason why I edit many posts myself). The issue is with users who are begging to be able to make edits under 6 characters. I strongly agree with Jeff, there's just no imaginable case where this is necessary. Even with full edit privileges, I don't think I've ever changed less than 6 characters. – Cody Gray May 19 '11 at 23:51
  • @Cody, fixing links are often under 6 chars when the last bit of the link was left off. I have also wished to add a missing "not" to a post. – Ian Ringrose May 20 '11 at 8:32
8

Er.. what? Fixing a broken link would surely push you over the 6 character minimum in most cases.

Beyond that, dream bigger.

Is the post otherwise so perfect that nothing in it can be improved?

If so, then it is a rare post indeed ... like a majestic, dew-flecked unicorn.

| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    I demand that all Stack Exchange company cars be painted with this picture. Bumper to bumper. – Pekka May 18 '11 at 9:58
  • 1
    So you are saying that we would rather not have the linked fixed, if the person that has found the correct link for there own usage does not wish to spend more time inproving the post? A broken link can be under 6 chars when it is a copy/paist error. – Ian Ringrose May 18 '11 at 10:07
  • 1
    @Ian: I'm not really sure I understand why someone who wants to fix a link would "not wish to spend more time improving the post"... But even speaking hypothetically, you have to consider the time it takes for other users to review those edits. It's not a free process; it requires the time and attention of at least two trusted users who probably have better things to be doing. Like answering questions. Setting the bar high is how we keep the suggested edits feature from becoming a huge drag. – Cody Gray May 18 '11 at 10:32
  • 4
    @cody and can SIX LOUSY CHARACTERS rationally be considered "setting the bar high?" I consider it "setting the bar.. at all" – Jeff Atwood May 18 '11 at 10:37
  • 1
    @Cody, If someone quicks on link and it fails for them, they may well then spend the time finding the correct link as they wish to access it. So how do we then make it easy for them to tell the rest of us what the correct link it. Don't assume that the person started of wishing to inprove the post. – Ian Ringrose May 18 '11 at 11:37
  • Not really too rare. I remember seeing <ctrl-v>v a few times. – Izkata Feb 2 '14 at 15:41
  • @CodyGray It's not so much not wanting to improve the post more, it's having to hunt and not finding anything worthwhile to change. If I'm determined, I usually end up doing stuff like change it's to it is just to get over the limit. – Izkata Feb 2 '14 at 15:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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