This is a question for 2000+ reputation users who can access to Suggested Edits reviews queue.

Why do you accept all suggested edits even if there is just one tag or minor text has been updated?

I understand to be kind is cool and can stimulate new users to participate to the community but there are rules I'm sure you know. There are so many suggested edits that should be considered as "too minor".

I don't want to encourage users to arguing and I don't think about specific users, I just want to understand.

Here's a related discussion on StackOverflow meta.

2 Answers 2


I agree to some degree and I regularly reject a lot of suggested edits..... However you should note that just because its a 'minor' edit doesn't necessary mean that it should be rejected.

Here's my stance on what I believe:

Clicking Improve

For example if an appropriate tag has been added to a question but the question could be improved some what via spelling, grammar or anything else that you feel you should add then ideally if you should click the improve button... I would hope that people who don't have the time to improve the question or answer simply press the skip button rather than just rejecting it... It doesn't necessary indicate that the user who has proposed the edit is lazy but rather you may have better English skills or more understanding about how stack exchange works and want the user base wants from it.

Minors Still Contribute to User Experience and overtime Administration

If you believe a question has a minor edit such as a tag then by no means should you reject that edit if an appropriate tag has been added, after all the edit is still valid, and as I said if it can't be improved then why reject?

People have better Grammar and Spelling than others

Another thing is that if a person has given an edit a go but you feel the grammar or spelling can still be improved or the answer/question can be made even more clear then again it doesn't necessary mean its an invalid edit, questions and answers often go though dozens of edits before they become excellent to perfect, this is the beauty of the Stack Exchange Q&A software.

Not Defending Minor Editors

By no means am I defending people who blatantly know that the question or answer can be improved more than their minor edit but wish to raise the above points to not categorize ALL PEOPLE who do helpful minor edits as being lazy.


I have mixed feelings about "too minor". The use case for it is when somebody is editing a lot of posts with trivial changes with the goal of getting a badge easily.

On the other hand, a minor edit can really improve the quality of a post in same cases

  • Glaring spelling error
  • Broken link correction
  • Additions of line breaks or list formatting to improve readability.

I've actually run into cases where I have to do useless edits on posts to get the minimum number of characters in an edit when just one character will fix a broken link.

I'm personally in favor of approving minor edits that improve a post significantly, as long as the user making the edits isn't doing lots of minor edits. If there is a user doing lots of minor edits, we should remind them to fix ALL the problems in each post.

You must log in to answer this question.

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