Post History

My own view is that even minor edits are valuable, even on old posts. I appreciate that there will sometimes be reason to reject such edits, but I would not personally take the age of a post into account when making that decision.

Until reading [Olin Lathrop's answer](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/290841/290843#answer-290843), I hadn't realised that all the rejections were Olin's on his own posts. I now understand that part of the reason for the rejections was the quantity of edits, which seems important enough for a separate Meta discussion:

- [How should we approach large numbers of edits made all at once?](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/290846)

I appreciate Olin's point that some Meta questions are no longer relevant due to changes in how the site works, so editing them seems redundant. Personally I would still be inclined to accept an edit even in such a case.

New users sometimes read back through old discussions so I would like those discussions to be as clear and unambiguous as possible, even if they are no longer relevant and only being read for historical interest. In cases where there is a danger of misleading new users who read an old post, I would prefer to edit to add a note to that effect, rather than avoid editing the post (which doesn't prevent a new user finding it by other means).