5

I edited a question, fixing 21 grammatical errors. A moderator rejected this edit, calling it a "minor change":

https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/47688

The same moderator earlier approved a similar edit with only a handful of grammatical changes:

https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/47425

My question is this: Why is the first one a "minor change" worthy of rejection whereas the second edit is acceptable? What exactly is the standard?

1
  • Life isn't fair, and SE sure isn't. I think that is what you'll end up concluding.
    – dyasta
    May 12, 2017 at 15:57

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

I was the moderator who rejected that one amongst others. Basically when we get a flood of edits old questions and answers it bumps old content to the top of the "active" page and buries the newer content which still needs attention. When the edits are minor in nature I choose to not let the edits through. One offs are a different story as they don't affect the active tab this way.

IIRC on the main meta site minor grammatical changes are usually frowned upon if they don't make a significant difference in the readability of the question or answer. But I generally like them as long as they don't do as mentioned above.

5
  • 2
    So editing 1 question is fine, but editing 5 is not? That seems a little arbitrary...
    – wogsland
    Mar 16, 2017 at 23:41
  • 1
    It is arbitrary. Generally speaking minor edits like that should all be rejected. But, like I said, I don't mind seeing questions or answers improved as long as they don't bury new content. Bulk minors edits do just that.
    – John Conde Mod
    Mar 17, 2017 at 0:03
  • 5
    I disagree with this philosophy. Preserving the front page isn't valuable enough to prevent people from making great edits to old questions. There are other ways to find newer content that needs attention such as the unanswered list and community bumps.
    – Stephen Ostermiller Mod
    Mar 17, 2017 at 2:34
  • But are minor changes "great edits"? The question is still readable and no new information or content is provided. That's hardly "great".
    – John Conde Mod
    Mar 17, 2017 at 10:45
  • 6
    It looks like John has found a weakness in the system that could be solvable with a simple checkbox or set of radio buttons that prevent this from happening. I agree that I like to see edits that are simple grammar and spelling, however, for those to then rise to the top of the active list does not make sense if there is not enough of a change to warrant the attention. It is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Cheers!!
    – closetnoc
    Mar 18, 2017 at 16:10
-1

I find it is best to edit your grammar mistakes BEFORE posting your content. It saves time from everyone involved. It's more professional too.

1
  • 1
    The edit in question was to somebody else's post. While it would be nice if everybody posted with perfect grammar all the time, the reality is that many posts need to be edited by somebody for grammar. Our power users are generally very good at cleaning up poorly worded questions and answers.
    – Stephen Ostermiller Mod
    Apr 18, 2017 at 0:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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