@random Well, the warnings and messages could still be improved, even if that requires a "chat with an expert" type interfaces… :P

Minor edits aren't that bad, and I see waaaay too many edits rejected on the ridiculous basis of "minorness". I'm sorry to see that you're going to make that worse.

@Troyen: Any technically valid edit should be accepted, IMO. "You didn't fix this other thing too" is a frankly stupid reason to reject improvement.

Well I don't mind so much if we discourage users without edit rights from submitting edit suggestions that are really minor, as that does clog up the queue. However, rejecting such edits outright seems counterproductive, and going further by discouraging high-rep users from these edits (as I see on meta frequently) is just offensively stupid.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit 1) That's the rules, period. 2) Minor edits clog not just the edit queue, they also can be used to game the reputation system. 3) Bumping questions excessively is a problem. 4) There's no real reason why minor edits should get thru. Any positive effects are… minor, and reject-improving isn't hard.

@bjb568: 1) On a subsite dedicated to discussing and improving the rules, what sort of ridiculous logic is that?! 2) High rep users do not "game" the reputation system through edits; they neither want nor need to. 3) No, it's not. 4) I already addressed that: improvement is improvement, no matter how small.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit 1) Oh, you can dispute it on meta, but you have to follow the current rules while reviewing. 2) No, low rep users game the system by taking advantage of the fact that almost any edit can go thru the system or roboreviewers. 3) From my experience of the home page, it is. 4) I addressed that to: It isn't an improvement if it encourages, essentially, gaming the system.

@bjb568: 1) The rules do not define "too minor" clearly enough for you to use that as an argument against anything I've said; my interpretation of a valid "too minor" reject is one that rejects BrE->AmE. 2) So what? If the edit is valid, it's valid, and they deserve the rep. If they only made the edi to get rep, so what? That's why we have rep: incentive. If they're trying to game with bad edits, it doesn't matter: they're bad edits, so reject. Again, then, irrelevant argument. 3) Explain. 4) Yes, it still is.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit 1) "This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post." 2) Nobody "deserves" reputation. 3) This bumped the post to first on my front page. 4) Ok, fine, if you really want to keep the edit, push the improve button.

@bjb568: 1) Right, weasel words. All vague and subjective. No specifics whatsoever, beyond "multiple" which yes I will choose to entirely ignore because that text is just wrong. "Minor", "substantive". 2) Everybody who adds value deserves reputation. That is the entire point....?! 3) You've still not explained why this is such a bad thing, only asserted so. If you hate the post so much, don't worry, because it'll get knocked off within minutes. 4) No, because I don't have time to improve it. You're still obsessed with this idea of all or nothing.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit 1) "Multiple" is the rule. You don't really have a choice, unless you want to be review banned. 2) Nobody "deserves" reputation. They happen to earn reputation thru their actions. (and thru roboreviewers) 3) Bad posts shouldn't be on the front page. 4) If you don't have time to review properly, please don't review.

@bjb588: 2) By definition, if you earn reputation through good actions, then good actions lead to deserving rep. 3) "Bad" is subjective, and somebody just improved a post, so bumping it may encourage others to finish the job. This is a good thing. Bad posts can never be improved if no-one ever sees them. 4) Stupid thing to say, totally ignores everything we've already discussed.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit 2) People tend to earn reputation through good actions, no logical conclusion possible. 3) Bad is to be graded in review, in particular in the suggested edit queue where "too minor" should be applied to edits that make a negligible difference to a low quality post. You shouldn't try to spread bad questions everywhere so people improve them, they are deemphasize so good questions can be answered and viewed (and learnt from). 4) What do you mean? Do you want to encourage roboreviewing?

hey @Unihedron !

Oh hi!

Curiousity :P

I feel like we just got invited to a party, but the hosts got into a fight and stormed out

Hiya @AstroCB

@Unihedron Who has the popcorn?

I thought I heard @bjb568 say we could eat whatever's in the fridge

(raids the fridge to find a bottle of juice) Oooh!

this party is a sausage fest, laters

Welcome back @iStimple!

uggh, bug

@Unihedron it keeps re-joining me! HALP!

@iStimple Let's populate this room with positive content!

Welcome back @iStimple!

So, we're removing it. Entirely.

To decline something as "too minor", you gotta submit a better edit instead.

If you can't do that, then either you should've declined it for a different reason, or approved it.

@Shog9 But there is no time to improve an edit, since the edit will already of been approved!

@Shog9 Sounds like a good idea as long as only one reviewer sees an edit at a time.

@iStimple read the answer I linked to above