18

I often fix grammar on questions, including capitalization errors, misspellings, etc. I've been doing this for a while, maybe two weeks or so. No one has really said anything about my edits until today. A user asked me to "stop proposing minor edits". Lots of my edits do happen to be minor, but I don't purposely do small edits just for reputation. So the question is should I keep fixing grammatical issues/spelling even if it is a minor edit? I think editing these issues helps with readability, but I'd like to hear what other users think.

  • 2
    I personally think it's okay, however most people are not going to agree. Remember other people are going to need to review the edits, is your edit worth the time of up to three other people? Just make sure that you fix all the issues with the post and not just correct a couple of things. If there are lots of minor spelling/grammar mistakes then it will be probably okay. – Aequitas Oct 8 '15 at 0:41
  • 1
    I love those kind of questions on meta's sites, always good to see new people wanting to know how things work here. – Jonathan Drapeau Oct 8 '15 at 12:53
  • @JonathanDrapeau Thanks Mr. Drapeau. I think it would be helpful if this info was given while edting or something. Since I am fairly new, I'm sure plenty of other n00bs don't know this kind of stuff. :P – TheUnicornMaster Oct 8 '15 at 23:02
  • @TheUnicornMaster I think you need to start looking at how you're approaching edits. What I see you doing is adding filler to meet the character requirement and not actually improving the post, like removing pharses like "Thanks, please help, please", and focus on getting to the point. – senpai Oct 27 '15 at 22:33
  • @oamlyya I removed stuff like this because I thought it wasn't needed. I did not intend to add filler, but I will keep this in mind in the future – TheUnicornMaster Oct 28 '15 at 0:57
11

The idea that we should hold suggested edits to a higher standard than regular edits is patently absurd. If anyone should be held to a higher standard, it should be reviewers.

We should encourage edits that make a positive improvement to posts, not selfishly discourage them to keep the suggested edit queue at zero all the time. Discouraging edits that make positive improvements to a post, even if they aren't big changes, and even if they don't get everything (this is what "improve edit" exists for) is actively harmful to the mission of the site.

So, absolutely keep suggesting grammar edits. You are making the site a better place for it.

11

I believe the user you're referring to is me. I've been noticing a lot of edits from you lately that seem to hit the minimum character limit of suggested edits. Specifically, this edit is what spurred me to comment. On the face of things, the only improvement is adding an apostrophe into, "I'm". The rest of the change is superfluous, and adds no value. From my view, it was done to hit the six character minimum for edits. In cases like that, even with the improvement at the beginning, I'd judge the edit as no improvement.

While it would technically be an improvement, its so minor that we shouldn't encourage, nor reward, single character edits.

This isn't to discourage you from suggesting edits; its just that you should make them count. Two people have to review your edit, so if you're going to take up their time, let's not waste it on minor apostrophe edits, please.

  • 2
    Thank you for your answer. You were the user I was referring to and I've looked over a lot of my recent edits and noticed they were pretty poor. I didn't know that two people ave to review an edit. I will be sure to keep this in mind. thanks again! – TheUnicornMaster Oct 8 '15 at 1:14
  • 3
    @TheUnicornMaster when you have more than 2,000 rep, you can edit posts without having it reviewed, but until then - 2 people (with 2000+ rep) have to review your edit. – Elise Oct 8 '15 at 1:19
  • @Chippie I'm learning a lot today XD thanks – TheUnicornMaster Oct 8 '15 at 1:21
  • 1
    I'm not sure about this site, but over on stackoverflow they tend to allow more leeway on minor edits if the question is new (maybe within 12 hours?). Fixing grammar in old questions is generally frowned upon (specifically if your edit needs to be approved). – user101016 Oct 8 '15 at 10:50
  • @CamelCase I sure am not giving any leeway on SO or here for newer questions/answers. Edits must be worth my time to review, regardless of the age of the edited content. – Jonathan Drapeau Oct 8 '15 at 12:51
  • 8
    For what it's worth, I think the main issue is the fact that these minor edits end up in the review queue and thus cost other users time to review. Once you get enough rep to edit without review, such changes aren't bad (as long as you don't do 20 at once and spam the front page with edits). – Sterno Oct 8 '15 at 13:47
  • 7
    This is silly - the review queue is almost non existent. If it is an improvement (which you yourself admitted) why not just let him do it? I'd rather have properly spelled and grammatically correct posts. – walrus helmet Oct 20 '15 at 21:34
  • @walrushelmet If a user is making superflous edits to hit the minimum character limit, that tells me the edit is too minor. As it was, it was a wash. – Frank Oct 20 '15 at 21:40
  • 4
    If a post only needs minor improvement, committing a major change just so you can say you left your mark on it seems like abuse. Also, there's an 'improve edit' button in the review queue for a reason; if you see something that somebody missed during their edit, you can help them out and top it off! Collaborate! – GnomeSlice Nov 30 '15 at 2:57
11

I don't see why any edit that objectively improves a post should be declined. Even if all an edit does is add an apostrophe to contractions, that makes the post more proper and more readable, and is an objective improvement. If I saw such an edit, I would click approve.

I don't think it's worth the approver's time to consider whether something is enough of an improvement. Just consider whether there is improvement at all. Any improvement is better than none. Incremental improvement is still improvement.

Of course, if you're going to suggest edits, then do make an effort to improve the post as much as you can at that point in time. But if you see something blatantly formatted wrong, and all you have time to fix is the obvious formatting before you have to rush off to whatever plans you have, I think it's worth taking the time to suggest something rather than nothing, rather than worrying that "something" isn't "enough".

tl;dr: Objective improvements should be approved, even if they're small, and even if there are still more improvements to be made.

  • Part of the reason minor improvements were highly frowned upon before is that at a certain number of edits, a post would automatically become community wiki. This is no longer the case. Therefore, "no improvement whatsoever" should absolutely not be read as "too minor". – Unionhawk Nov 24 '15 at 6:06
  • 2
    The other thing to consider is that there's already a automated mechanism in place that stops edits that are 'too minor': Users suggesting edits can't suggest them unless they change more than a certain amount (it's been so long I can't remember how much haha). Thus rejecting as 'too minor' seems like a waste of everyone's time. – Robotnik Nov 24 '15 at 7:13
  • I strongly agree. If only I could accept two answers. – TheUnicornMaster Nov 24 '15 at 16:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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