I'm improving posts on Stack Overflow. I don't know why, but quite often someone votes to reject my suggested edit as "too minor" when I improved every issue in the post!  I cannot improve more if everything is improved. Do you think that   I think it is not.   People who checking suggested edits should be more clever!
122780
OK, this question has been asked over and over, and I am still unsure. I am just trying to find the thin line between a substantial and minor edit.  I find myself making edits for grammar and poor formatting, that I can see some reviewers find minor and others do not.  I have also noticed some users with high rep, or moderators will make the similar edits:     If I have edited your post with an edit summary of “ARGH”... ... or   some variation thereof, then you probably used “it’s” when the correct   word was, in fact, “its”.   Can anyone provide a definitive way to establish whether or not one should proceed to edit? It seems to be more a matter of opinion rather than an objective delineation.
78153
I've been reviewing suggested edits lately, and have come across a problem in the queue: we don't have the normal 'flag' link for the post. I'm not talking about flagging the edit, but the post itself. Often, I will come across a post that, though the edit does improve it, still is low quality, and should be flagged as such. While I want to give the user recognition for trying to improve the post, I also want to let the mods know that it's low quality - and having to go to the question in the normal view isn't very fun for this. So, please add a flag link below posts in the Suggested Edits queue.
103066
I've thought about proposing this for a while.  It would be very easy to make or curate "too minor" review audits.  Chances are, many of them are approved.  I don't know how big of a problem it is for too many review items to be approved, but , and think this probably happens way to much.  So proposal is to add "too minor" audits in addition to the spammy fake text ones.  Picking audits shouldn't be hard - how about ones that were unanimously rejected as "too minor" and where the diff is fewer than 5 characters (since yes, these exist I think in abundance).  Note another advantage is this gives us genuine reviews in the audit queue at all.  The fake ones have some efficacy but I've seen people complain about them on various meta-threads, to a greater extent than say, audit close questions.  Note: the linked edit actually breaks the code by dropping a {. All the more egregious it went approved; however I imagine the reviewers didn't notice the breaking change since they approved it...  which more or less means they either 1) didn't read at all or 2) saw a tiny formatting diff and approved it instead of rejecting as too minor.  So, more complicated but, still case in point.
13447
I have now enough reputation points on Stack Overflow to edit every post directly. But sometimes (especially if this is about a field where I'm not savvy, or when I try to edit a question title without having understood the question itself) I might be not totally sure about whether my edit really is an improvement.  For now, I have these options:   Do the edit anyway, hope that someone else will catch it if it is wrong Don't do the edit, and hope that someone else will see this post and edit it in the right way Let a comment and hope that someone will see it (either after editing or instead of it). Flag the post for moderator attention (but will the moderators know it better?) Search the right chat room to find someone who knows more about the topic.   All these are not really optimal, I think.  I would like to have a check box     [_] Submit this edit for approval   which, when checked, would submit the edit into the usual edit approval queue. Then I would get at least one or two other pairs of eyes looking over my edit, and maybe even improving it.  (I don't really care about the +2 reputation for the edit - I think it should be without any reputation difference here.)  There's an  for nearly giving everyone the ability to suggest edits that the post owner can approve, but I'm simply interested in being able to insert them into the general edit queue where anyone can approve them.  Actually, I could do this right now by having a low-reputation sock puppet (or a totally anonymous edit), but I think this is not the intended use for sock puppets, is it? Also, I would like to be able to get feedback for my edit.
19452
When reviewing possibly low quality posts you sometimes see OK answers, except that they're wrong. From the review interface you can't downvote so you can only comment or edit, and editing isn't really an option when the intended answer is wrong.  Once you've commented or upped an existing comment, should we then click Looks Good because there's nothing wrong with the answer, except that it's wrong, or Not Sure so that the answer is reviewed again (and again)?
87758
Note: Somewhat related to .  As a Suggested Edits queue reviewer, it's frustrating when reviewing a question that requires an edit, and going to edit only to find that you're not able due to a pending edit.  Of course, if I hadn't used up all 20 edits from the queue in this day, I would be able to either Accept or Improve the edit with my own changes. However when all of the edits are used up, this leaves no option but to move on which is fairly limiting. It's made worse when the pending edit doesn't actually address what you wanted to change.    Is there any way to bypass this limitation? (That is, of course, without refreshing endlessly waiting for the edit to be approved or rejected to make your own)
80908
When new users edit a post, the review is posted to a review queue and other reputable users can review the edit and choose to approve or reject it. However, I feel that a lot of people do it pretty quickly.    to . He was fixing broken links in the answer, and as soon as I saw it I knew it would have been a good edit. However, only one reviewer found so, and three others rejected it. I ended up manually doing the edit, and poor Onato didn't get any credit for it (in fact, he got an undeserved 'rejected' for it).  The point I want to bring is that, first and foremost, the person who wrote the answer probably knows best if an edit is acceptable or not. Could there be a time frame where the author of the answer (or question) can overturn a review decision?    EDIT: one more  was rejected by overeager reviewers as well. I absolutely disagree with the notion that the community knows better. The community repeatedly proves that it only wants Internet points.    EDIT: I told a commenter to fix something himself in one of my posts, but . I went back and applied the changes myself. It's not credited to him and his stats got a rejected edit now (which really should be an approved edit). The reason ("This edit is incorrect or an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post") is blatantly wrong and shows once more that the community has much less insight into edit quality than the people who wrote the answers in the first place. It's true that the UI didn't make it easy for them, but those guys clearly didn't read the comment thread; I did, because as the author, I was notified.    EDIT: This time around, a user fixed a blatant (though small) mistake in one of my accepted answers. One hour later, another, unrelated 10k user , even though it had been approved by the community. I went back to undo his undo.  This goes on again to show that an active user is the best judge for the quality of an edit, and that since I can have the last word on edits on my own posts, I should be allowed to retroactively overturn a community edit vote and accordingly credit the person who proposed the change.    EDIT I wrote a  years ago. Some guy found it and tried to fix it but the community thought that it wasn't worth it. I think that the changes are great and once more I'll integrate them by myself into my post. Unfortunately for this user, he won't be credited for it. I still don't understand why I can't have a binding vote on edits on my posts.
59289
At present a low rep user (under 2k) can only make an edit suggestion of more than 6 chars, however when someone has taken the time to find to correct link it is a real shame the correction can help other users!  So I think link fixing should be special cased somehow.  (Also the checkering of a changed link need to be better than other edits, so a page that showed what both the old a new links point to (in frames) could help with the approving processes.)
63396
If you add a comment explaining why you downvoted - and I mean a long-ish comment which goes into a bit of depth to explain the issue you have with the answer - your comment gets rejected, and a dialog box pops up saying:     Don't comment on your downvote. If you think this post can be improved, please offer specific guidance.   That's just wrong, since:   Downvotes without comments are antagonistic and somewhat hurtful (for posts written in good faith). You might well be offering specific guidance in the downvote comments. It's much better for the downvoter to leave a sub-optimal comment with some feedback then to be discouraged by this message and not provide any feedback.   Instead, the comment should be accepted (except perhaps for a very brief "-1 wrong"-style comments), and the message could say something like:     When commenting on a downvote, try to explain how this post can be improved, and offer specific guidance.   The comment should remain in edit mode to encourage it to be edited, but canceling the edit would leave the comment as-is (again, except for the case of problematic/very brief comments).  Notes:   This question focuses on the specific scenario of a meaningful comment being rejected, and on the rejection message. This is distinct from how to encourage meaningful/positive criticism in general. If it's the "-1" indication that is super-bothersome to people, then either this should be removed from the comment (with the rest of it left), or it should be made very clear that is the reason the comment can't be accepted i.e. "don't explicitly mention the downvote in downvote comments" rather than "don't comment on downvotes".
111740
At the moment normal users do not get notified if someone suggests an edit on their own question or answer. I'm not even sure if they can see these suggestions if the do not have the corresponding privilege.  I think users should get notified about pending suggested edits on their own posts and also be able to see and accept or reject the suggestion independent from their own reputation.
20682
Problem: A lot of the time I downvote something that clearly shows lack of research or effort on OP's part, and when they edit to improve it, I usually find out pretty late, because there are no notifications to help with that.  Proposition: add a Get notified when this post is edited button/checkbox under a post which you have downvoted (per post, not just all posts ever), so that if there is a significant improvement, you could remove your downvote or even change it to an upvote to show you recognize the improvement.  I believe this would improve public thinking about votes, and make people (who choose to participate like this on the SE sites more often) vote more freely and more often, and everybody else would not think of a &lt;0 post score as a death sentence for their contribution.  I'm not asking to enable this on SO (for a number of obvious reasons), and that's why I propose an opt-in subscription. This would be most useful on lower activity sites like the SE, in my opinion, but who knows.    I want to know if someone has improved their post after a downvote to reinforce the positive behavior and I get -4 on my good intentions? What kind of culture are you trying to cultivate? Please, explain why you disagree without silently downvoting. If you think there's a better way, yes, I want to know your thoughts.
89310
I must get up to 5 or 6 of my daily Suggested Edits that have the following as Edit Summary:     Fix bad grammer [sic]   Maybe I'm just a spelling/grammar/syntax Nazi, but it makes me angry that people who are supposedly improving the grammar of a post can't write 3 words without making a blatant error.  Is it OK to not even give a glance to the actual changes and reject the edit solely based on badly spelled Edit Summary?
52696
I'm getting pretty close to the reputation where I can start to edit others' posts, and I'm wondering what the etiquette for when (and when not) to do so. I figure that I should edit in the following circumstances:  Grammatical or spelling errors. Clarification where the meaning is not changed. For instance if the title does not describe the question very well. Where the user has made a very minor mistake that doesn't justify a full post to clarify. To add related resources or links that will help someone answer the post, or provide context  Before the commenting feature was added, I noticed that some moderators edit posts in order to insert a reply or extension to the post. I feel this isn't good etiquette (but I could be wrong) because I don't know what to do with their changes when I come to re-edit or respond. I also feel that I should be very careful not to change the meaning of any question or answer, even if that meaning is misguided. What other rules would be best practice?  Signatures and fluff are discouraged and are fair game to be removed.  See, for example, this post by  and this post by  and also see .  Also see Jeff Atwood's response in the comments to
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.
82157
It happened many times that I submit an Edit Suggestion and immediately after that I see the post has already been edited by another guy (usually higher-rep) and my edit has been rejected by either Community or reviewers.  Why there is no mechanism to prevent simultaneous edits and avoid unfair rejection?   This is my first attempt to edit the post:   As you can see it got rejected by community because another user submitted an edit. And immediately after that I wanted to re-edit my edit which turned to this (Actually it rolled back all the edits):
23041
If I were in danger of being banned from asking questions, I'd be advised:     ... Also, edit your previous questions to improve formatting and clarity.   It happened to me, very recently. At the time, I only had three questions here on Meta SE. To quote Shog:     That's one positively-received question, followed by two duplicates - the last downvoted and deleted.   How do I improve a question marked as a duplicate?   Rewrite it to something else? Maybe that's gaming the system but at least its a way out. Rewrite it so that it is better than its predecessor? At least then it can maybe serve as a useful landing spot for a search engine result where the search terms matched it rather than the original. Get into the time machine, go back to just before posting the duplicate, do a better job of searching for alternate wordings of the question, then not post it? The only problem being, the Stack Exchange's search engine is, how to put it, far from perfect. Oh yes, and the time machine thing. Forget about it improving "duplicates" -- focus on improving deleted questions instead? How do I manage that?   Please, rethink the way you handle question banning warnings.
40660
Some individuals may be sensitive to edits of their posts on the basis of spelling or grammar. Some editors may be concerned about what to put in as a reason/explanation for the edit. New editors, in general, are likely uncertain of what the accepted "etiquette" is, on these sites, for such corrections.