Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Minor suggested edits to old posts

Parent

Minor suggested edits to old posts

+4
−0

There have recently been several edits in a short period of time by a single user. This user does not yet have the Edit Posts ability, so all of the edits are suggested edits, which require review by someone with the Edit Posts ability.

The outcomes of the suggested edits affect whether this user will also gain the Edit Posts ability. Some of the edits have been approved, and some rejected, even though the approved and rejected edits were similar. This makes it difficult for a user to judge which edits they should make and which edits they should avoid, making it difficult for a well meaning user to gain the Edit Posts ability.

Can we discuss whether edits for typos, formatting, and missing tags should be considered acceptable on old posts? I have my own opinion on this, but I'm aiming to keep the question neutral. I believe an answer either way will be more useful to users suggesting edits than having mixed responses to their suggestions.

Related

This discussion is about whether minor edits should happen on old posts. There are also closely related discussions:

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+2
−1

I am the user mentioned in this question.

I believe that submitting an edit just for removing or adding a tag is not enough.

BUT if you look at those questions, none of them have [discussion], [support], [bug] or [feature-request].

My guess is that at that time these were not required, so some questions didn't include them. But they are required now. Nobody can write a question in the present time without including one of these tags.

I edited such a post and clicked submit, then an error came saying that the post doesn't have a required tag. And just like that all my work on that post was back to point 0. So I thought why not add the required tag to such posts.

Not having a required tag in a question:

  • Makes it look like that post has "broken" the site.
  • Makes it difficult to search questions and categorize them broadly based on the four required tags.
  • It is a "required tag" so every question should have one. Otherwise it may be confusing.

I believe that adding a required tag isn't that "minor", because of the above reasons.

But I agree that for such edits the post should not be bumped. But also this is just a one-time case of edits since from a point of time since they were made mandatory, every question has a required tag.

I would have also opposed an edit for just some normal tags.

But I am happy to learn more about the site's policies on such edits.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Upvote despite one disagreement (5 comments)
Upvote despite one disagreement
Andreas from the dark caverns‭ wrote 3 months ago · edited 3 months ago

I've gone ahead and upvoted your post, as you bring forward some important arguments for your edits, but I must dissent with these parts:

I believe that submitting an edit just for removing or adding a tag is not enough.

I would have also opposed an edit for just some normal tags.

I'd just like to have a quick mention of that here. Correctly tagging posts is crucial to the site, so while tag edits may be minor, they are still important and impactful, much more so than fixing typos (btw, I hate typos). Please don't refrain from making tag edits, even for non-required tags.

meta user‭ wrote 3 months ago · edited 3 months ago

Hi Andreas from the dark caverns‭, I copied that mentality of edits needing to be more than just for a tag from SO. But now I'm confused. If on CD these types of edits are accepted, then why were some of my other previous tags edits declined? Should I pause making edit contributions till this minor edit thing is implemented? p.s. Appreciate your agreement :)

meta user‭ I'm not so sure why you'd be getting that mentality from SO, where there's a precedent for such edits being acceptable. Are you sure the problem isn't that you actually just made edits to low-quality posts? If a post is headed for deletion anyway, there's no point in sending edits of it to review. If anything, CD and SO is very similar in this regard; tag edits are fine; the disagreement is about whether or not bumping posts is justified for making the edits. The general stance on SO is that you can make a few such edits, but not a lot of them at a time. Personally, I think this is wrong, but it's also important to keep in mind that SO is weighed down by a lot of debt in functionality and UX. So a lot of the decisions on SO stem from an idea that nothing can be done to change the system.

You'll see it's one and the same person that's been declining your edits, while staff members of Codidact have been accepting them. That said, staff members opting to do it that way, isn't much of an argument in itself, as this is a (somewhat) democratic community-driven platform. My answer stating that declining your edits is wrong, is currently sitting at 2 upvotes and 2 downvotes, so the community seems divided in this case. I do understand it's quite annoying to have the posts list flooded with posts with no actual real new activity, but I consider that a necessary burden at the moment.

Should I pause making edit contributions till this minor edit thing is implemented? p.s. Appreciate your agreement :)

That might be a good idea. Personally, I'd say no, but it's not my own personal decision to make (sadly!).

Although I stand by what I say. I really don't think it's correct to decline what is to be considered correct edits. But I cannot enforce that view onto those reviewing your edits.