4

Whats the policy on minor edits? I made several edits where I did a combination of the following:

  • Removed odd spacing / formatting in questions
  • Fixed lower-case letters at the start of sentence of for the word "I"
  • Removed "Hello/Hi..." and "Thanks/Any Help?" type signatures

All of those edits were rejected here at Cooking -- but the Mods over at GameDev, SuperUser, and ServerFault accepted very similar edits.

Just wondering what your policy is here at Seasoned Advice?

3

We don't have any policy that I know of - it's up to the discretion of individuals to approve/reject/vote as they see fit.

Just to be clear, approving/rejecting edits is not solely a moderator function. Anybody with the edit questions and answers privilege (i.e. anybody with at least 2000 reputation) can vote to approve/reject an edit, and I think it only takes 2 or maybe 3 such votes to either finalize or drop the edit.

Consensus on MSO (our "mother meta") is that signatures and taglines should be removed; in fact, the FAQ even says not to use them:

Can I use a signature or tagline?

Please don’t use signatures or taglines in your posts. Every post you make is already “signed” with your standard user card, which links directly back to your user page.

So people shouldn't be rejecting edits that remove signatures/greetings.

On the other hand, I probably would reject an edit that only contains minor formatting changes or the correction of an "i" to an "I". I don't like poor punctuation either, but those types of edits really don't add anything substantial, and they bump questions/answers that really, in a big-picture sense, haven't actually had any new activity.

That's just my personal take on it and once again, there isn't a formal policy or set of official rules for accepting/rejecting edits. But, in my personal view, removing signatures = OK, changing lowercase letters to uppercase = not OK.

  • Most of my edits contain two of the three bullets, and most frequently all three... – Nate Apr 13 '11 at 2:22
  • How do you feel about accepting grammar edits if the question is already at or near the top of the list since accepting those edits doesn't really bump the question? – yossarian Apr 20 '11 at 14:05
  • @yossarian: I really think those have to be looked at individually. The more superficial and pedantic an edit is, the more likely I am to reject it. Age will make me more likely to reject a pointless edit, but a trivial edit is not necessarily OK simply because the question/answer is new. Keep in mind that edits still count toward community wiki and so on. – Aaronut Apr 20 '11 at 17:21
  • @Aaronut, Please help me understand. At 675 or so rep, I am invited to edit posts from brand new users or posts on old threads. Am I not supposed to fix "there for their" or "its for it's"? Those little grammar things bug me, and really distract me from really getting the most from reading the post, which might be brilliant. I am not likely to edit the meat of most posts, I don't want to put words in somebody else's mouth, so the 6 character minimum keeps me from minor editing. I don't find fixing "their for they're" pedantic at all, for me (and I suspect many others), the edit is significant. – Jolenealaska Sep 28 '13 at 4:29
  • LOL, I got that last comment in at exactly 600 characters by replacing "six" with 6. – Jolenealaska Sep 28 '13 at 4:31
  • @Aaronut Furthermore on the same issue, personally I'd like to create and maintain the illusion that Jolenealaska is a pretty smart cookie. If somebody were to come across a typo, misspelling, or error in grammar or punctuation in something I had written, I'd hope that they would take the time to edit it. I don't want an error in the use of my native language "out there" for posterity. – Jolenealaska Sep 28 '13 at 5:36
  • @Jolenealaska: Generally, people will reject those edits. One of the standard rejection reasons reads, and I quote: This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post. In other words, if a post has really poor grammar overall, go ahead and fix it. Or maybe, if there's a serious typo that completely changes the meaning of a sentence, fix that too. But correcting one "there" to "they're" isn't going to be viewed as substantive. This is especially true for minor edits that fail to address major problems like walls-of-text. – Aaronut Sep 28 '13 at 12:51
  • Thanks for answering my question. I'll try to stifle the "Grammar Nazi" that lurks within. :) – Jolenealaska Sep 28 '13 at 13:31
  • @Jolenealaska: It's not that we summarily reject every grammar edit, just the ones that can't see the forest for the trees. Take this edit, for example, which removed a signature, which is exactly the topic of this thread. But I rejected it because it was on a question that was already closed and the edit didn't address the core problem (i.e. being a poll/recipe question) at all. I wouldn't say that you need to stifle grammar edits, just don't lose sight of the big picture. – Aaronut Sep 28 '13 at 14:04
  • I take it we see "rejected edits" and the reason the edit was rejected? – Jolenealaska Sep 28 '13 at 14:07
  • @Jolenealaska: People with edit privileges can see all suggested edits, approved or rejected (or still pending). I'm not sure, but I think there's still some way you can see your own edits and reasons for rejection (if applicable). – Aaronut Sep 28 '13 at 15:41
1

I rejected nearly all of your batch of 10 or so edits because of the trivial nature of the edits.

I personally have no problem with a question ending in "Thanks", or starting with "Hello". I wouldn't personally do that, but I just see that as how a large part of our much less technical audience behaves online.

I didn't feel it was appropriate to bump 10 questions to the top of the page just to remove a thanks or a hello, or to fix capitalization.

I've approved dozens of edits from other users who have substantially improved the quality and clarity of a question being asked. I'd suggest that you try to improve questions in more ways than simple capitalization and punctuation edits. If trivial grammar edits are more your cup of tea, that's fine I guess; please just definitely ease up on the volume. There's no reason to bump 10 questions for trivial edits. There are definitely better candidates for editing out there.

  • Per the FAQ I remove signatures whenever I find them, wherever I am. Often it is the only edit necessary on many posts; when more is required I obviously include more -- though after rejecting my edits, I can't make any until next week. – Nate Apr 13 '11 at 14:22
  • For the record, it wasn't a batch it was more of my browsing the site and making edits as I went. But good to know that removing signatures isn't welcome here. – Nate Apr 13 '11 at 14:27

You must log in to answer this question.

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