There was a suggested title change for this question:

How do I choose between 24-70 f/4 and 24-105 f/4 Canon lens?

The only edit was to the title, which was a minor improvement. However the body had serious grammar issues. My understanding is that we should either Reject or Improve the question in that case, not Approve? In other words, we should never accept a minor change when there are far more serious issues with the question?

I screwed up by rejecting it, intending to go and fix, but it was locked due to another reviewer accepting it. So had to wait until a third reviewer accepted it before I could go and fix up the original. Just a minor annoyance, but just want to suggest that before accepting trivial changes that we take time to review the full contents and address any other issues at the same time.

  • Don't hesitate to ping a moderator in chat too... We're often around and if aware, we can help break the logjam.
    – Joanne C
    May 22, 2013 at 2:32
  • I was the one who did that edit. I firmly believe as some of us below have mentioned, that incremental edit is much better than leaving things alone. With regards to the triviality of the change, I don't think editing a title is trivial. One needs to read, understand and then prepare the statement. So there's some fair bit of time involved even for such an edit. And of course, even though this is voluntary, this does take time and effort. Now with regards to why I did not edit the body, I simply did not have the time at that moment because as you mention there were far more issues. (contd...)
    – Regmi
    May 25, 2013 at 4:43
  • ...Having said that, I also believe that this is a community effort where each one of us lays a stone each time to build it. So I would say you saved your own time when you edited the body because you did not have to work on the title.
    – Regmi
    May 25, 2013 at 4:43

3 Answers 3


Any improvement is one. If it makes the question, title or tags better, I'd let it in.

Rejecting because it does not fix everything is going to end up refusing people's help and this is not what we want to have a happy community.

  • 2
    The main possible problem I can see here is that it makes it much faster to hit the 10 edit limit before it becomes community wiki automatically. Thus, unless there aren't any other significant problems, I do think an edit could be too minor without further improvement. Cumulative basic grammar fixes shouldn't drive something to community wiki.
    – AJ Henderson Mod
    May 25, 2013 at 22:24
  • 1
    Oh! I had no idea there was such limit. Good to know.
    – Itai
    May 25, 2013 at 23:44
  • 1
    @Itai-yeah, I didn't either until I learned about it a week or two ago from a similar meta topic over on Sec.SE. So I'm not 100% sure about it, but that is what I was lead to believe. It would be nice if they had a "minor edit" option like wikipedia that wouldn't count towards it.
    – AJ Henderson Mod
    May 26, 2013 at 2:43
  • 2
    +1 - New users may be hesitant to make large edits, but when even the small edits get accepted, this should encourage them to do more thorough job next time. May 27, 2013 at 8:58
  • 1
    The edit limit is there to prevent abuse, like constant edits o bump the question, or crazy back-and-forth which would really be better in chat. If the edits are legit, a moderator can un-CW the question.
    – mattdm
    Jun 1, 2013 at 2:12

Yeah, I think that was me who accepted that one. I really like questions to have more descriptive titles. I agree that edits should address the whole question, but sometimes it seems like incremental improvement is better than leaving it.

I'm definitely not a fan of the way questions get "locked" in the way you describe.


Yeah, I will usually reject if it is either debatably better grammar or improve if it is incomplete. I tend to be fairly picky about the edit's I'll accept. I also reject out of hand if it seems to change the meaning.

You must log in to answer this question.

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