Return to Question

Should we accept/improve edit suggestions where the editors could obviously have done more?

Example 1: Fixing only one letter

Take this edit suggestion as an example. The only difference between the original and the suggested edit was the capitalization of the first word in the title.

Now, when I see a post with a pending edit, I'll mostly go ahead and just accept it or improve, unless it makes the post worse or is completely wrong. Actually, in almost every case, I will improve on it. For example, here I

• removed the bold highlights
• added a list in order to improve readability (because in my opinion the question was poorly formatted)

But in that case, the post could have been much more improved by the editor – and just fixing one capitalization? Wasn't there more to do?

Even the help for editing says:

We welcome all constructive edits, but please make them substantial. Avoid trivial, tiny one-letter edits unless absolutely necessary.

So – in such a case – shouldn't we reject such a suggested edit?

Example 2: Fixing only tags and minor changes, but leaving the rest alone

This post had its tags edited, which is basically a good thing, because dvd-burning could help others find this question.

But then again, the question

• missed a question mark in the title (because the title was a question, after all)
• had a spelling error ("Windows7" instead of "Windows 7")
• mentions a "Mac Environment", whereas OS X would probably make more sense
• had the hardware mac tag instead of the osx software tag which is misleading and a very common mistake in tagging on Super User
• had a "thank you" that should be removed as well (while we're at it)

All very tiny things, but I believe those are justified edits. Now, editing tags only is fine. There was no suggestion involved here. But hypothetically, if there were just a small typo fix: Should we accept such an edit suggestion that only edits tags and apart from that does nothing to help a post?

Note that I have nothing against that particular user. Diogo, I'm sorry for picking these examples, but those were the ones I found immediately.

Also, editing is very subjective. But in some cases it's very clear that there is more to do than just fix a letter or a tag.

I welcome every edit suggestion, but in my humble opinion the +2 points you get for it aren't really justified if they are that trivial.

Also see the Stack Overflow Blog:

If you are going to edit a post, make sure you’re substantively improving it. Avoid making isolated, trivial edits, as they are the source of much friction. For example, don’t bother changing “its” to “it’s” unless you have several other edits to make in the same post.

 

There has to be a legitimate case that your edit made multiple changes transforming the post from good to great — or at least substantively improving it.

What's the best course of action here, then?

Should we accept/improve edit suggestions where the editors could obviously have done more?

Example 1: Fixing only one letter

Take this edit suggestion as an example. The only difference between the original and the suggested edit was the capitalization of the first word in the title.

Now, when I see a post with a pending edit, I'll mostly go ahead and just accept it or improve, unless it makes the post worse or is completely wrong. Actually, in almost every case, I will improve on it. For example, here I

• removed the bold highlights
• added a list in order to improve readability (because in my opinion the question was poorly formatted)

But in that case, the post could have been much more improved by the editor – and just fixing one capitalization? Wasn't there more to do?

Even the help for editing says:

We welcome all constructive edits, but please make them substantial. Avoid trivial, tiny one-letter edits unless absolutely necessary.

So – in such a case – shouldn't we reject such a suggested edit?

Example 2: Fixing only tags and minor changes, but leaving the rest alone

This post had its tags edited, which is basically a good thing, because dvd-burning could help others find this question.

But then again, the question

• missed a question mark in the title (because the title was a question, after all)
• had a spelling error ("Windows7" instead of "Windows 7")
• mentions a "Mac Environment", whereas OS X would probably make more sense
• had the hardware mac tag instead of the osx software tag which is misleading and a very common mistake in tagging on Super User
• had a "thank you" that should be removed as well (while we're at it)

All very tiny things, but I believe those are justified edits. Now, editing tags only is fine. There was no suggestion involved here. But hypothetically, if there were just a small typo fix: Should we accept such an edit suggestion that only edits tags and apart from that does nothing to help a post?

Note that I have nothing against that particular user. Diogo, I'm sorry for picking these examples, but those were the ones I found immediately.

Also, editing is very subjective. But in some cases it's very clear that there is more to do than just fix a letter or a tag.

I welcome every edit suggestion, but in my humble opinion the +2 points you get for it aren't really justified if they are that trivial.

Also see the Stack Overflow Blog:

If you are going to edit a post, make sure you’re substantively improving it. Avoid making isolated, trivial edits, as they are the source of much friction. For example, don’t bother changing “its” to “it’s” unless you have several other edits to make in the same post.

There has to be a legitimate case that your edit made multiple changes transforming the post from good to great — or at least substantively improving it.

What's the best course of action here, then?

Should we accept/improve edit suggestions where the editors could obviously have done more?

Example 1: Fixing only one letter

Take this edit suggestion as an example. The only difference between the original and the suggested edit was the capitalization of the first word in the title.

Now, when I see a post with a pending edit, I'll mostly go ahead and just accept it or improve, unless it makes the post worse or is completely wrong. Actually, in almost every case, I will improve on it. For example, here I

• removed the bold highlights
• added a list in order to improve readability (because in my opinion the question was poorly formatted)

But in that case, the post could have been much more improved by the editor – and just fixing one capitalization? Wasn't there more to do?

Even the help for editing says:

We welcome all constructive edits, but please make them substantial. Avoid trivial, tiny one-letter edits unless absolutely necessary.

So – in such a case – shouldn't we reject such a suggested edit?

Example 2: Fixing only tags and minor changes, but leaving the rest alone

This post had its tags edited, which is basically a good thing, because dvd-burning could help others find this question.

But then again, the question

• missed a question mark in the title (because the title was a question, after all)
• had a spelling error ("Windows7" instead of "Windows 7")
• mentions a "Mac Environment", whereas OS X would probably make more sense
• had the hardware mac tag instead of the osx software tag which is misleading and a very common mistake in tagging on Super User
• had a "thank you" that should be removed as well (while we're at it)

All very tiny things, but I believe those are justified edits. Now, editing tags only is fine. There was no suggestion involved here. But hypothetically, if there were just a small typo fix: Should we accept such an edit suggestion that only edits tags and apart from that does nothing to help a post?

Note that I have nothing against that particular user. Diogo, I'm sorry for picking these examples, but those were the ones I found immediately.

Also, editing is very subjective. But in some cases it's very clear that there is more to do than just fix a letter or a tag.

I welcome every edit suggestion, but in my humble opinion the +2 points you get for it aren't really justified if they are that trivial.

Also see the Stack Overflow Blog:

If you are going to edit a post, make sure you’re substantively improving it. Avoid making isolated, trivial edits, as they are the source of much friction. For example, don’t bother changing “its” to “it’s” unless you have several other edits to make in the same post.

There has to be a legitimate case that your edit made multiple changes transforming the post from good to great — or at least substantively improving it.

What's the best course of action here, then?

Should we accept/improve edit suggestions where the editors could obviously have done more?

Example 1: Fixing only one letter

Take this edit suggestion as an example. The only difference between the original and the suggested edit was the capitalization of the first word in the title.

Now, when I see a post with a pending edit, I'll mostly go ahead and just accept it or improve, unless it makes the post worse or is completely wrong. Actually, in almost every case, I will improve on it. For example, here I

• removed the bold highlights
• added a list in order to improve readability (because in my opinion the question was poorly formatted)

But in that case, the post could have been much more improved by the editor – and just fixing one capitalization? Wasn't there more to do?

Even the help for editing says:

We welcome all constructive edits, but please make them substantial. Avoid trivial, tiny one-letter edits unless absolutely necessary.

So – in such a case – shouldn't we reject such a suggested edit?

Example 2: Fixing only tags and minor changes, but leaving the rest alone

This post had its tags edited, which is basically a good thing, because dvd-burning could help others find this question.

But then again, the question

• missed a question mark in the title (because the title was a question, after all)
• had a spelling error ("Windows7" instead of "Windows 7")
• mentions a "Mac Environment", whereas OS X would probably make more sense
• had the hardware mac tag instead of the osx software tag which is misleading and a very common mistake in tagging on Super User
• had a "thank you" that should be removed as well (while we're at it)

All very tiny things, but I believe those are justified edits. Now, editing tags only is fine. There was no suggestion involved here. But hypothetically, if there were just a small typo fix: Should we accept such an edit suggestion that only edits tags and apart from that does nothing to help a post?

Note that I have nothing against that particular user. Diogo, I'm sorry for picking these examples, but those were the ones I found immediately.

Also, editing is very subjective. But in some cases it's very clear that there is more to do than just fix a letter or a tag.

I welcome every edit suggestion, but in my humble opinion the +2 points you get for it aren't really justified if they are that trivial.

Also see the Stack Overflow Blog:

If you are going to edit a post, make sure you’re substantively improving it. Avoid making isolated, trivial edits, as they are the source of much friction. For example, don’t bother changing “its” to “it’s” unless you have several other edits to make in the same post.

There has to be a legitimate case that your edit made multiple changes transforming the post from good to great — or at least substantively improving it.

What's the best course of action here, then?

Should we accept/improve edit suggestions where the editors could obviously have done more?

Example 1: Fixing only one letter

Take this edit suggestion as an example. The only difference between the original and the suggested edit was the capitalization of the first word in the title.

Now, when I see a post with a pending edit, I'll mostly go ahead and just accept it or improve upon it, unless it makes the post worse or is completely wrong. Then I'll mostly go and improve on it. For example, here I

• removed the bold highlights
• added a list in order to improve readability (because in my opinion the question was poorly formatted)

But in that case, the post could have been much more improved by the editor – and just fixing one capitalization? Wasn't there more to do?

Even the help for editing says:

We welcome all constructive edits, but please make them substantial. Avoid trivial, tiny one-letter edits unless absolutely necessary.

So – in such a case – shouldn't we reject such a suggested edit?

Example 2: Fixing only tags and minor changes, but leaving the rest alone

This post had its tags edited, which is basically a good thing, because dvd-burning could help others find this question.

But then again, the question

• missed a question mark in the title (because the title was a question, after all)
• had a spelling error ("Windows7" instead of "Windows 7")
• mentions a "Mac Environment", whereas OS X would probably make more sense
• had the hardware mac tag instead of the osx software tag which is misleading and a very common mistake in tagging on Super User
• had a "thank you" that should be removed as well (while we're at it)

All very tiny things, but I believe those are justified edits. Now, editing tags only is fine. There was no suggestion involved here. But hypothetically, if there were just a small typo fix: Should we accept such an edit suggestion that only edits tags and apart from that does nothing to help a post?

Note that I have nothing against that particular user. Diogo, I'm sorry for picking these examples, but those were the ones I found immediately.

Also, editing is very subjective. But in some cases it's very clear that there is more to do than just fix a letter or a tag.

I welcome every edit suggestion, but in my humble opinion the +2 points you get for it aren't really justified if they are that trivial.

Also see the Stack Overflow Blog:

If you are going to edit a post, make sure you’re substantively improving it. Avoid making isolated, trivial edits, as they are the source of much friction. For example, don’t bother changing “its” to “it’s” unless you have several other edits to make in the same post.

There has to be a legitimate case that your edit made multiple changes transforming the post from good to great — or at least substantively improving it.

What's the best course of action here, then?

Should we accept/improve edit suggestions where the editors could obviously have done more?

Example 1: Fixing only one letter

Take this edit suggestion as an example. The only difference between the original and the suggested edit was the capitalization of the first word in the title.

Now, when I see a post with a pending edit, I'll mostly go ahead and just accept it or improve, unless it makes the post worse or is completely wrong. Actually, in almost every case, I will improve on it. For example, here I

• removed the bold highlights
• added a list in order to improve readability (because in my opinion the question was poorly formatted)

But in that case, the post could have been much more improved by the editor – and just fixing one capitalization? Wasn't there more to do?

Even the help for editing says:

We welcome all constructive edits, but please make them substantial. Avoid trivial, tiny one-letter edits unless absolutely necessary.

So – in such a case – shouldn't we reject such a suggested edit?

Example 2: Fixing only tags and minor changes, but leaving the rest alone

This post had its tags edited, which is basically a good thing, because dvd-burning could help others find this question.

But then again, the question

• missed a question mark in the title (because the title was a question, after all)
• had a spelling error ("Windows7" instead of "Windows 7")
• mentions a "Mac Environment", whereas OS X would probably make more sense
• had the hardware mac tag instead of the osx software tag which is misleading and a very common mistake in tagging on Super User
• had a "thank you" that should be removed as well (while we're at it)

All very tiny things, but I believe those are justified edits. Now, editing tags only is fine. There was no suggestion involved here. But hypothetically, if there were just a small typo fix: Should we accept such an edit suggestion that only edits tags and apart from that does nothing to help a post?

Note that I have nothing against that particular user. Diogo, I'm sorry for picking these examples, but those were the ones I found immediately.

Also, editing is very subjective. But in some cases it's very clear that there is more to do than just fix a letter or a tag.

I welcome every edit suggestion, but in my humble opinion the +2 points you get for it aren't really justified if they are that trivial.

Also see the Stack Overflow Blog:

If you are going to edit a post, make sure you’re substantively improving it. Avoid making isolated, trivial edits, as they are the source of much friction. For example, don’t bother changing “its” to “it’s” unless you have several other edits to make in the same post.

There has to be a legitimate case that your edit made multiple changes transforming the post from good to great — or at least substantively improving it.

What's the best course of action here, then?