I've recently come across approved edit suggestion (e.g. this and this) which either don't improve the post or actually changed it's meaning altogether.

So please be careful with the edits you approve. One is not bound to approve or reject if unsure. You can always skip and let others decide but don't approve improper/meaning changing edits or reject good edits.

Tag edits I personally consider to be minor and lazy because while one's at it they could make other improvement as well, therefore reject them. Made an exception here because I genuinely thought nothing else could be improved therein.

This edit wasn't entirely necessary and I for one think there is a possibility ("not" isn't always used for negation) that the edit changed the meaning of the title.

If one further edits an edit suggestion and actually uses the suggestions made in that edit that suggestion is definitely helpful.

More guideline on how to make edits here.

I now ask the community to provide there thought and suggestion on this? And provide their disagreements (if any) to the guidelines suggested above.

| |
  • 1
    Can you provide better examples please ? There is a huge difference between "why did yazid kill" and "Did yazid order his soldiers" former gives the impression that Yazid was in the battle and killed Hussien by his own sword. Latter, he gave an order since he was in damascus. and the Um qurfa was a rude move. I opened a meta topic and you ignored it. However, +1 for this post – Sohaeb May 12 '14 at 18:09
  • See, like you said there is huge difference. Edit are not supposed to be huge differences which could actually risk the meaning and intent of the question. They are meant to improve the post. – Bleeding Fingers May 12 '14 at 18:13
  • well....You also completely changed the Um Qurfa question and no body complained(OP was asking for something else)... Anyway, It is better if you can find other edits which don't improve a post. – Sohaeb May 12 '14 at 18:19
  • How was it a rude move? Am I bound to provide answers to every meta discussion? I choose to edit and then answer. Which I did although I wasn't mandated to do either or both. Please be optimistic. I fail to see how it "completely" changed the question. – Bleeding Fingers May 12 '14 at 18:21

I totally agree with you. Unnecessary and simple edits (such as: HERE and HERE) should be avoided by high rep users and not be approved for low rep users. However, I kindly disagree with you regarding the part "completely changing the meaning".

Often, someone asks a good question that is well formatted and has quality contents. But it doesn't abide with one of the "Don't ask these questions" criteria. (i.e: the 2nd example you gave was implying something which questions should not be used for that). Thus, In my opinion, the question should be edited , even if this would cause an overhaul change, instead of closing it. Even the actions of the OP agrees with me when he tried to completely change one of the questions. Moreover, you will find a couple of posts (for example here) suggesting some questions to be rephrased because these questions can be answered but they were badly framed.

| |
  • The former is a good example and latter is a bad one(it was a good edit, thumbs-up). Secondly this post is about approvals. High-rep user are trusted therefore they are given that right nothing wrong about it. It's their responsibility to make their edit count and worthwhile. – Bleeding Fingers May 15 '14 at 5:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .