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.
Post History
One of the linked questions, about not bumping minor edits, has a suggestion that would have helped in this case: allow edit reviewers to decide if an edit is minor. For that to happen, at last tw...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Monica Cellio
·
2024-02-18T03:10:42Z (10 months ago)
- [One of the linked questions](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/281610), about not bumping minor edits, has a suggestion that would have helped in this case: allow edit *reviewers* to decide if an edit is minor. For that to happen, at last two people were involved, and the owner of the post is also notified of the edit suggestion. If we did just that part, without tackling the larger "minor edits" problem that has to account for direct edits too, then there would be no problem with things like the current situation (adding required tags to old questions that predated the requirement) or small typos.
- I propose the following:
- - A reviewer can approve normally (bumps), reject normally, or approve as minor edit. (Exact UI TBD.)
- - A minor edit does not bump the post in the question list.
- - *But* the "last activity" timestamp/attribution is updated.
- - Minor edits are marked as such in the post history.
- This means you could, in principle, see a question on page 37 with "last activity 15m ago". But if you look at the history you'll see why, so I think that's ok. I do feel that "last changed by so-and-so at such-and-such time" markers should not lie.
- [One of the linked questions](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/281610), about not bumping minor edits, has a suggestion that would have helped in this case: allow edit *reviewers* to decide if an edit is minor. For that to happen, at last two people were involved, and the owner of the post is also notified of the edit suggestion. If we did just that part, without tackling the larger "minor edits" problem that has to account for direct edits too, then there would be no problem with things like the current situation (adding required tags to old questions that predated the requirement) or small typos.
- I propose the following:
- - A reviewer can approve normally (bumps), reject normally, or approve as minor edit. (Exact UI TBD.)
- - A minor edit does not bump the post in the question list.
- - *But* the "last activity" timestamp/attribution is updated.
- - Minor edits are marked as such in the post history.
- This means you could, in principle, see a question on page 37 with "last activity 15m ago". But if you look at the history you'll see why, so I think that's ok. I do feel that "last changed by so-and-so at such-and-such time" markers should not lie.
- We could also consider adding a filter or other option to allow users to see every bump (current behavior) versus not bumping reviewer-designated minor edits. Moderators and active curators might prefer to see everything.
#1: Initial revision
by
Monica Cellio
·
2024-02-18T03:01:12Z (10 months ago)
[One of the linked questions](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/281610), about not bumping minor edits, has a suggestion that would have helped in this case: allow edit *reviewers* to decide if an edit is minor. For that to happen, at last two people were involved, and the owner of the post is also notified of the edit suggestion. If we did just that part, without tackling the larger "minor edits" problem that has to account for direct edits too, then there would be no problem with things like the current situation (adding required tags to old questions that predated the requirement) or small typos. I propose the following: - A reviewer can approve normally (bumps), reject normally, or approve as minor edit. (Exact UI TBD.) - A minor edit does not bump the post in the question list. - *But* the "last activity" timestamp/attribution is updated. - Minor edits are marked as such in the post history. This means you could, in principle, see a question on page 37 with "last activity 15m ago". But if you look at the history you'll see why, so I think that's ok. I do feel that "last changed by so-and-so at such-and-such time" markers should not lie.