1

I made an edit that got rejected claiming, "Many links were removed during editing" which is wrong, as I didn't remove any link, I only shortened the label to ease readability as too much blue made it hard to determine what the link was about and also I find the idea that a whole sentence is needed to describe a link as somewhat ridiculous and it is better to keep it short.

The next complaint was about it being too minor. I removed the bold formatting. It may be only a formatting issue, yet I think also the seemingly small stuff counts. After all, it disturbed me so much that I invested time to edit.

If only the links were an issue I guess I would have let it unchanged. Yet I do not think that bold text is a valid highlight of an entire paragraph of an answer. It hits you over the face, almost like CAPLOCKS. It's on a level of a typo for me.

So I guess my question is: Is it too minor?

  • 2
    The only real change was formatting. In instances like that, I feel that they are too minor. That's essentially the answer's personal choice. – Frank Jul 5 '13 at 17:11
  • 1
    @fbueckert If formatting is a personal choice, then I guess so is orthography. – k0pernikus Jul 5 '13 at 17:16
  • 2
    Really, it is. If someone suggested an edit to change spelling from colour to color, and didn't actually change anything, I'd reject that, too. We don't have standardized formatting rules, and as long as it's not over the top (which is rather subjective), there's no reason to change it. – Frank Jul 5 '13 at 17:19
  • 1
    Hmmm ... For one, I agree that the "links removed" reason was ridiculous and that removing unnecessary formatting is a good choice. But in this case, the answerer definitely wanted to emphasise the bold part - removing that entirely is bad. Toning it down so it isn't an entire paragraph is fine in my book, but not removing it completely. – user98085 Jul 5 '13 at 17:29
  • @fbueckert I am not talking about different type of rules, as in American vs. Oxford English. Neither of them are personal choices but have somewhat defined rules. I am talking about basic rules that one should at least try to adhere to for making the reading experience as easy as possible for everybody. So while colour and color are both valid, coluor or kolor would not be. And I guest this applies also for formatting. Which can be abused. And the case I am trying to make, it was. – k0pernikus Jul 5 '13 at 17:29
  • 2
    Were there spelling mistakes? If all you're changing is formatting, then it really is too minor, I'm afraid. You cannot apply your standards to the entirety of the site. What is acceptable to some people may not be acceptable to others. That's part and parcel of being a member of a community. – Frank Jul 5 '13 at 17:37
  • 3
    @fbueckert We do actually have a standard protocol for American vs. British spelling (just maintain internal consistency and don't change allow edit changes, so as to prevent edit wars), so that's a bad example in this case. – FAE Jul 5 '13 at 17:37
  • 1
    @FAE Ok, yeah, that was a bad example. My point was that as long as it's consistent across the question/answer, then a suggested edit changing only that should be rejected. Which standard is used is up to the poster, and should not be modified by other users. Since we don't really have standardized protocols for formatting, it should be left to the poster. Yes, we are collaboratively edited, and that's awesome. I try to clean up posts all the time to make them more readable. But that's why users under 2K require approval; to learn the ropes of what is and isn't acceptable. – Frank Jul 5 '13 at 17:43
  • 1
    @fbueckert Part of being a member of a community is either adhering to the guidelines set in place or changing them. I am trying to figure the guideline out for formatting here in order to avoid future futile edit attempts. I am not trying to impose anything. – k0pernikus Jul 5 '13 at 17:44
  • 2
    Meh, I'd personally have let that edit through – badp Jul 5 '13 at 23:00
3

Yes, a small formatting change is Too Minor.

I agree that a huge chunk of bold is bad, and I would trust an established user to make a call and edit it if they chose. Too Minor is partially about the effort to results ratio, however. Pulling in 3 other reviewers is not warranted for this change. As a general rule, people don't respond favorably to having their time wasted; thus, as someone without full editing privileges, you definitely want to err on the side of substantial edits involving bigger problems (or actual content rather than presentation).

  • 2
    Time wasting works both way though. If I have to wonder if my edit would be too minor, I could lose motivation to edit at all. – k0pernikus Jul 5 '13 at 19:37
  • 2
    @k0pernikus - Try browsing the Low Quality & First Posts review queue. There's plenty that comes through there that borders on incoherent but is only really 2 sentences long. Easy way to get a few edits in or expand on answers (if you have the knowledge) – Robotnik Jul 6 '13 at 7:43
  • 1
    @k0pernikus I agree, if you are too busy to put thought into your editing you should not edit. – Matthew Read Jul 6 '13 at 17:00
  • @MatthewRead It's not about not putting thoughts into editing. It's about having to deal with "too minor". Call me a sucker for content and presentation. – k0pernikus Jul 6 '13 at 17:07
  • @k0pernikus I get that, I'm just working within the current SE guidelines. There's probably a valid case to be made that that edit-rejection reason should be removed, and other measures taken to prevent the main page being filled with posts bumped for minor reasons, but if you are interested I would propose bringing that up on MSO :) – Matthew Read Jul 6 '13 at 17:25
  • 1
    @k0pernikus Discouraging you (and other under-2k users) from taking the time to submit borderline-minor edits that take the time of 3 high-rep users to review is exactly the benefit being described. If you're discouraged from making borderline edits, the rejections have served the Grand SE Machine's purposes. If that discourages you (or other under-2k users) from editing at all, then that is acceptable casualties as far as the Machine's needs are concerned. There are enough persistent editors that unpersistent editors don't need to be courted at the cost of inefficiencies. – SevenSidedDie Jul 6 '13 at 18:22
  • 2
    @k0pernikus That may seem harsh, but editing posts is a mostly thankless task that will not bring cookies and cheers the way that writing Q&A will, so if the impersonal machinations of the site's design seem harsh, then editing here is perhaps not an activity you'll find rewarding. – SevenSidedDie Jul 6 '13 at 18:27

You must log in to answer this question.

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