It's not that uncommon for me to be interested in edits people make to questions or answers, especially when I'm doing review tasks and someone I downvoted/closevoted might have fixed the problem, but I usually have no interested in tag-only edits.  I understand and agree with the philosophy that all edits, no matter how minor, should result in a "bump" of some kind so that at least someone sees what you did. But it shouldn't be too hard to make that bump say "retagged" instead of "modified" so I can avoid wasting a few clicks on a change I don't care much about.  Plus, you can already see all of a question's current tags on the front page, so even if you are interested in retags, there's often no real need to click on "modified" to see the formal edit history.
88745
When I'm looking down the front page on , I often wish I could tell at a glance what happened to the question to bump it there. Sometimes it is obvious from looking at the number of answers, other times you have to follow a link to find out if it has been edited or if an answer has been added or updated.  I'm guessing this is just as applicable on other SE sites - this is the kind of thing I'm suggesting:    A couple of suggestions from the comments that might be good:   To reduce clutter the word 'ago' could be removed at the same time. The new text could be visible only to established users - ie users who are likely to be reviewing/editing and would benefit from seeing at a glance what kind of change has occurred.
39383
The same issue as  has arisen again.     The bug was initially fixed, but it seems to have regressed. I'm posting again because SE generally prefers we file new bug reports if a fixed bug comes up again, rather than removing the  tag on the older one. Again, I really don't like it there. It's eye-catching and extremely distracting for me.
44116
I recall :    It was one that I knew could use a bit more spit and polish, but I didn't have the inclination or energy to edit it myself, so I skipped it.  I wander my way over to  (10K only), and look at the listing...    ...so, when did I approve this again? I skipped the question; that doesn't mean I gave my tacit approval, does it?  Seems like the dashboard needs to agree with the suggested edits view.
93388
I saw  which has been locked for almost 2 years get bumped back into the main feed, and when I checked out the revision that bumped it, I see that  which are doing nothing but bumping things needlessly.  Maybe he's grinding for Copy Editor, maybe he's just bumping stuff he likes, but it seems a bit excessive.  What's the community view on folks who make massive amounts of "non-edits" like these and what's the preferred way of dealing with it?
6681
See the revision history on , where the  tag was edited in (and subsequently edited out after I started this discussion).  I think, by adding this tag, you're making assumptions about the OP which they could find a little bit offensive.  Particularly with this question, there's no mention of the level of PHP knowledge — it's more a math question than it is a programming question. Someone could be excellent at a particular language whilst not being particularly great at math, so isn't it a bit insulting to make the assumption they're a beginner? It's also interesting to note  tag, which currently stands at 7,784 on SO.  Compare this to , which only has 18 questions, most of them being &quot;discussiony.&quot;  Why do users retag questions as &quot;beginner&quot; but not &quot;expert&quot;? UPDATE, , .  Related   (thanks @Ralph)
5180
From this quote from , referring to the recent mass retagging here:  It left questions untagged. Yeah, it's meta, so there's required tags but those required tags are meta tags... literally. If a question doesn't have any tags other than the required tag, it's untagged! We don't prevent this, but maybe we should.  Do you agree with the point of view that questions here only consisting of required tags are effectively untagged? Should we prevent questions here on meta from only having one or more of the required tags , , , or ? I'm neutral about it; I just want to see what others think.
81093
I came upon a question where I wanted to make an edit, but I wasn't sure if it would change the original meaning of the question - as I did not know enough about the subject material to be sure.   I could wait for another user to come around and make the edit, but perhaps they wouldn't notice the problem that I wanted to edit. I could also suggest the edit in the comments, but it is such a minor nitpick of grammar that I seemed like a waste of a comment.   Of course, I can't just let a minor grammatical mistake go unnoticed.   So my suggestion is to allow an editor to mark an edit to instead be suggested to the author for approval, if the author believes it does not sufficiently alter the meaning of the question. It would pop up under their usual notification area to approve or reject a suggested edit.   This is different than the 5k/mod suggested edits version in that it would be from a user who could have edited the question, but still seeks the approval of the original poster.
82795
I want to delve into a new technology, and am not so interested in answering questions in my regular tags any more. So I deleted all my old favourite tags, and created a set of new ones. However, the &quot;interesting&quot; tab, as well as the other question views that I know of, still show mainly stuff from my old tags, and only an occasional question from the new one:  Why is this - could this be Kevin's  at work - which is super cool, but in my case now   Do I really have to actively &quot;ignore&quot; the old tags that I don't want to see? That might conflict with my new area of interest, though, as there may be some overlap between old and new tags and I would want to see them even though they contain an ignored tag.  Edit: ignoring my major old tags (which is not ideal at all) improves the results, but there is still plenty of stuff from esoteric tags that never were even on my &quot;interesting&quot; list - that I probably just happened to view, or be active in, a couple of times:  I can't possibly begin to ignore all the tags that show up here. It appears that my previous question activity is stronger than my expressed preferences - even for stuff I've never heard about, perhaps because of sheer quantity. Can this please be tweaked?
40550
Currently when you edit a question and change tags, the tags list to the right doesn't become synchronized. At least on SO using FF10.  So only page reload updates the list. Please fix that.
99451
Say there are two revisions: #2 mine #1 OP [edit]  What used to happen, if I pressed edit next to the first revision, added stuff to #1 (not #2), they would be like this: #3 rollback -- [manual comment if any] #2 mine #1 OP  That did not happen  (#3) as it used to; moreover, the OP title and OP tags were not reverted, even though the editing page included them:
7226
I was on the Suggested Edit's review tab today, and noticed that this user (take a look at today's ), was putting in hundreds of edits adding the C# tag to questions that didn't really need it. He got over 275 reputation today.   To me, this looked like spamming the edit system to get reputation. I started rejecting them as too minor, with also a custom message telling him this.   Here's one example:  Another:  Another:    And about 20-30 more. I hit my review cap for the day.  Is this valid editing behavior, and, if not, would a mod please get involved?  UPDATE: I've seen a couple of other meta questions about this in the last day, but it looks like the spike in gaming the system is passed.
66300
Honestly, I feel handicapped not being able to edit other people's posts here on Meta (and until recently could not even retag questions).  Why does our hard-earned reputation on SO not count in Meta?  There are already a lot of questions that need editing, and there are practically no users (aside from the mods) that can do that at the moment.  The  question itself contains so many spelling and grammatical errors that it's down right irritating not being able to edit it (on SO it would have been cleaned up in two seconds).  There should definitely be some conversion rate - or at least just carry over the privileges, if not the rep itself.
44958
Nice hole in the system... You can pretty much say anything in a revision comment and it cannot be removed or cleaned up by a mod.  See  for an example.  Mods need the ability to at least remove the comment, if not the ability to edit the text of it.
39609
Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of complaints about users making suggested edits en masse whose quality was at least questionable.  Let an example of a low-quality edit be the addition of the web-frameworks tag to dozens of questions about the PHP web framework Laravel. No one is ever going to use it in a search, but Laravel is a framework, right?  (If you disagree about this being a low-quality edit, please  bear with me anyway - my point here is that the system through which such conflicts could be settled is broken.)   Examples          This is a toxic situation guaranteed to create strife because -   The new user is happy to have found a way to participate and earn some rep; they may be genuinely feeling that they are improving the site. The reviewers greenlighting most of their suggestions confirms them in their belief.   The reviewers usually see only one edit - and it's easy to see how they might go, "meh, this isn't a terribly useful edit, but hey, maybe it helps someone, and it's a new user. No point discouraging them."   The veteran users who check out the editor see dozens of what they perceive as low-quality edits, usually ignoring anything else that should be fixed in the post. To the veterans, the new user is systematically looking for excuses to make their pointless edits, creating a giant mess in order to  gain some rep - a mess they have to clean up, while there are no consequences for the editor, who gets to keep their ill-gotten points. While a bad question or answer can be downvoted - usually leading to a change of behaviour eventually - the edit system looks like it's wide open for gaming.   So tensions are high, and when there's dialog it can be angry. I'm not saying either side is completely right. I'm completely prepared to believe that many of these edits are in good faith, etc. But it's a mess because it's frustrating people. As said, there are no consequences for bad-faith mass editing; apart from commenting on some random post, there is no way to communicate with an editor. The outcome of a moderator flag is very much uncertain.  The absence of a clear set of rules means there's plenty of room for heated arguments.    Something needs to change here.  Either   We need super clear rules on what makes a good tag edit Tag-only edits should be allowed only for 2k+ users, or they should not gain 2 reputation points for &lt;2k users The possible 1000 rep gain for suggested edits needs to be rate-limited (say, 200 per month) (this is my favourite!) The possible 1000 rep gain for suggested edits needs to be lowered, say to 500 or 250 Rollbacks of suggested edits should result in annulment of the 2 points gained (this is terrible) There should be a system to vote on edits (yes, that's been suggested before) There should be a defined and officially sanctioned pathway, and ruleset, for moderator flags cast about these users    ... or something else. But something needs to give.
16689
On the new History beta site I have the privilege to approve tag edits already but my own edits still go into the review queue. And the review dashboard displays a different number of pending edits depending on where I am: on  I see one pending edit, on  I see none. I am pretty sure that the pending edit being displayed is my own - I edited a tag wiki and that edit hasn't been approved yet. It shouldn't be counted no matter where I am.
6263
Seriously, I had not noticed e.g. Jeff's edit  had he not also retagged my question.
68331
EDIT:  It seems that I've also had edits that stacked well, so I'm not sure if I had a timing problem, or was just delusional.  The one thing that can be fixed, that I'll turn this question into, is a feature request so that when I go to re-edit (either within the 5-minute grace period, or before a suggested edit is approved), it brings up the old edit summary text.  Right now, it brings up a blank edit summary, and this replaced the first one I did.  This isn't really intuitive, and even knowing that's what it's doing, I still forget to put everything in.  Original Question:  It has happened a few times now, when on a site where I don't have edit privileges, that I make an edit.  I then see that the edit didn't work quite right, so I go back in to re-edit it.  This creates a brand new edit review, with an additional useless summary. How about we have the same grace period to re-edit your up-for-review edit, as there is for a normal edit? Of course, it wouldn't be possible once it's been approved.