What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

I saw other questions regarding this but I'd like to bring this issue up again:
I got a notification today saying a very old question of mine was edited. The edit? Removed my "Thanks, Noich" postfix (used to add it to questions until I asked about it and got explanations).

Now, the editor has almost 30% rejects and this is a really minor edit. How come only one reviewer noticed that, and is it possible to rollback the question? From the impression I got so far, users trying to get some editors badge is not an encouraged behavior.

share|improve this question
2  
Salutations and thanks are considered as noise and discouraged here. Even if the edit was indeed minor, removing thanks has a positive effect on your question. I would not try to roll that edit back. –  Frédéric Hamidi Jul 24 '13 at 8:24
2  
FWIW, I think the edit is absodefinitely too minor, considering the age of the post and the scope of the edit. –  Old Checkmark Jul 24 '13 at 8:29

2 Answers 2

Our policy is very clear: greetings and salutations do not belong in posts. People are encouraged to edit them out whenever they come across them.

Now, I realize you're saying you didn't know about this policy and that now that you do, all of your posts comply with it. That's great. And it's totally fine that some of your old posts didn't. We're not punishing you for it. We don't even necessarily expect you to go back and fix all of your old posts. Better, other people can do that for you, without you having to lift a finger. It doesn't hurt you in any way to have an edit made to one of your posts.

So we know that the edit was valid and correct. The only remaining issue, then, is whether this edit counts as "too minor". The problem is, that's entirely subjective. Apparently 3 out of 4 reviewers thought it was a significant enough improvement of the post to approve it. Even if they were wrong and it is a minor edit, I can't see what harm was done.

And yes, it is possible to roll back an edit. But that should only be used for cases where the edit is truly inappropriate. For example, when the person has vandalized your answer, or completely changed the meaning of your contribution. This would not be a legitimate usage of a rollback. Even if you were seeking vengeance against the editor, it wouldn't have that effect. His edit was already approved, he already got whatever imaginary points from it that he's going to get, and your rollback would just count as an additional edit.

share|improve this answer
    
What do you think of that particular suggested edit? Just want to know what would Cody Gray do. –  Old Checkmark Jul 24 '13 at 8:31
2  
@Old That particular edit? I would approve it. There's nothing else in the post that it fails to fix. If there were other problems remaining, I would reject it as "too minor". Rejecting this as "too minor" seems silly—what else could they have improved? Maybe capitalizing .NET in the title? Sheesh. –  Cody Gray Jul 24 '13 at 8:32
2  
I just think that it's too minor, not in the sense that there are other unfixed errors, but in the sense that the editor is 1) bumping a 3-year-old post; 2) causing a notification to the poster; 3) getting >=3 user(s) to review, just for removing "thanks". I just think that such trivial edits by itself should not be made a habit. But I get what you're saying. This is something that there would never be an agreement. –  Old Checkmark Jul 24 '13 at 8:43
2  
@Old The other points you make may be valid, but there is nothing wrong with bumping an "old" post here. The philosophy is that any improvement to a post is a good thing, no matter how "old" it might be. That's the wiki aspect of the site, as compared to the forum aspect. You wouldn't avoid editing a Wikipedia article just because it was written 2 years ago. –  Cody Gray Jul 24 '13 at 8:47

Yes, that edit is probably a little too minor by itself. However:

  1. It doesn't do anything really bad (like inserting links to viruses).
  2. We don't like "thanks" and other stuff anyway.
  3. By these criteria, it might not even qualify as too minor.
  4. It is already approved...

It could be rolled back, but I'm not going to. The edit wasn't useless (let alone malicious), and the front-page-bump resulting from the edit isn't worth much on SO (we get, like, eight questions a minute anyway).

share|improve this answer
1  
As I wrote, this post is from before I learned about the "thanks" issue. What bothers me is not the edit action itself, but someone presumes to improve my question by editing it after such a long time. If there was a single typo involved, I wouldn't have raised this issue. –  Noich Jul 24 '13 at 9:03
    
@Noich As noted by Cody Gray here: an old question was edited, so what? There is no timeframe after which things magically cannot be edited - that would be counterproductive. –  michaelb958 Jul 24 '13 at 9:12
1  
I never suggested a timeframe. Let me rephrase: I'm all for improvement of Q&A, be them old or new. I do not approve of too minor edits, especially not of those that are accepted, that donate nothing to readability or clarity of the question. It's the same as users that review first posts and just mark 'no action needed' in order to achieve maximum edits before the queue is emptied - it's so-called moderating, purely for moderating sake. This is what bothers me. –  Noich Jul 24 '13 at 9:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/190102/minor-edit-of-an-old-question
meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-52
86270
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:LIBPBTAXWTUHSK3MIUP44TNOCFFJQ2KJ
<urn:uuid:2f853f57-321f-4112-8373-59ea3c46e20a>
2014-12-25T04:06:28Z
198.252.206.140
sha1:35ZX2553BXQ3HI7J6FPJRF4FFQZWZZ5K
<urn:uuid:2f7eb5d0-d99c-40ff-bef6-0bf7f1a24b04>
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/190102/minor-edit-of-an-old-question
response
<urn:uuid:b5a357e6-d45d-4f91-b2f0-5ef949c35601>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-231-17-201.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-52
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for December 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf