Example: if I know the topic well, I'll happily approve an edit that makes major changes to the technical content of a post, re-writes code, adds examples or lengthy explanations... While @Robert here has taken a firm stand against such edits. Depending on who reviews your submission, you'll get very different results...
@RobertHarvey I'm sorry, I know everyone wants a nice set of simple rules that will guarantee the end of all controversy... But that's not going to happen. Editing will always be controversial, folks will always have different opinions on what's "correct", and frankly this is one of those. I think "fix every possible thing you can find" is pretty simple, but of course the devil's in the details: it leaves the door open for a sharp-eyed reviewer to find something you missed and reject it for that.
Anonymous
I don't have any idea how it could be improved, but a system that produces semi-random results is not a friendly system.
@Shog9 How hard would it be to add to the "Ask question" page: "Please don't add any salutations such as "Thanks" or "Hi", etc." instead of that being hidden somewhere in Meta?
user102937
My threshold for improvement is very low. If someone wants to suggest that I is better than i, and they've taken the trouble to fix it, why would I discourage their efforts by rejecting their edit as too trivial?
@RobertHarvey I agree with a better internet through edit, but removing one word from a question? I've left a question on meta with "aprove". It was asked yesterday and counts 106 views. Today was edited to "approved". it's one user on one side, 105 on the other!!
@Zuul No, it's 105 users who don't know how to spell on one side, and the Merriam Webster dictionary (and millions of people who use English and do know how to spell it correctly) on the other.
How to Ask Is your question about programming? We prefer questions that can be answered, not just discussed. Please don't add any salutations, for example, "Thanks", "Hi", or "Regards, User"
@Drise Yap, frustrating to be suspended, and unfair since many edits get approved on the same circumstances... But one must realize that there's tons of editors / revisers, and it's hard the development of a "system" that's perfect for all. One step at a time and we'll get there :)
Also keep in mind: for quite a while, the only way to edit was to rack up 2K on the site. When the "suggest" feature was added, it was pretty controversial - so the review system is intentionally geared to err on the side of blocking folks whose edits aren't well-received. If you can hit 2K in less than a week, you can still get around it...
Stack Exchange has never had a non-bumping minor edit system because bumping edits was necessary to review posts. What about a "minor edits" option, for registered and anonymous users, which doesn't bump the post but puts it into a distinct "minor edits" queue. People who prefer to review substantial edits could focus on the regular "suggested edits" queue, and could continue rejecting minor edits in the main queue.
@jeremybanks I can relate to that... Can't really grasp the outcome, but...
I would love to delve into this debate, but it's my time (sleep)! A thank you to all participants by the clarifications and viewpoints provided.
3 hours later…
user102937
3:07 AM
@Drise That edit is there so that you don't have to scroll back and forth to read all the code. Horizontal scrollbars suck when you're trying to read code. When you're trying to read anything, for that matter.
The whole discussion behind edits being 'too minor' is a stupid one. It was just a stupid argument that Fatwood tried to use to justify his lack of sound logic when he penalized me for doing what was asked of the community at the time.
@GEOCHET I don't understand know about this argument with Fatwood. What are you talking about? And what do you propose we do to solve this obvious confusion?
