Am I just being overly sensitive or are we starting to see a large uptick in the number of 'minor' edits like fixing typo's on questions that are months old and moving images from imageshack to imgur because they're replacing images with adverts.

I don't especially feel it's appropriate to be encouraging Wikipedia type behaviour where users spend an inordinate amount of energy on making and reversing trivial edits.

For now I'm letting them go through - but the question is should I let them or is there some kind of gaming of the system or rep boost from being listed as the editor of a post that means I should reject them?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Really minor edits should be rejected, the likely activity is badge hunting. :) \$\endgroup\$
    – Joanne C
    Commented Aug 17, 2015 at 19:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ With old questions I agree, but I don't see a problem with fixing minor (even one word) typos in new questions and answers, as long as any other issues are addressed (otherwise it may attract many edits and become Community wiki). \$\endgroup\$
    – MikeW
    Commented Aug 17, 2015 at 22:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ And isolated minor editing of old questions is ok IMO, bumping a single question to the front page can be a good thing. Frustrating when the review queue and the front page are spammed with trivial edits, but I don't think an isolated edit should be rejected for being "too minor". \$\endgroup\$
    – MikeW
    Commented Aug 17, 2015 at 22:37
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/253326/… \$\endgroup\$
    – MikeW
    Commented Aug 17, 2015 at 22:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Aren't edits only awarded points below a certain rep level? \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Aug 17, 2015 at 22:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ As a non native english speaker, I'm probably editing 3 or 4 times my questions just after I posted it. I tried to make it clear. Maybe I should do it before, but seing the whole text on a cell phone or a tablet using the SE app is hard... I didn't even knew a badge existed for editing. \$\endgroup\$
    – Olivier
    Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 15:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ Editing your own question doesn't need approval (afaik) so that's not a worry, I'm just checking that I'm not being complicit in gaming the system somehow. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 17:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MichaelClark Yes, 2k; unsurprisingly the same point at which you no longer need approval to edit. \$\endgroup\$
    – Philip Kendall Mod
    Commented Aug 18, 2015 at 21:52

1 Answer 1


In my opinion, such edits are not just fine, but positive, as long as they actually improve the post. Typos should be corrected, pointless salutations and signatures removed, and so on — and not just on the newest questions.

There are badges for curation of old questions for a reason, and that's not "gaming the system" except in the sense that the system is meant to be a game which encourages editing and improvement. And you don't have to take my word for it — this is generally consensus for Stack Exchange overall.

It is pretty annoying when edits correct just one typo and leave others intact. If you're fixing a spelling error, might as well also take the time to adjust the tags and improve the title so it describes the actual question specifically. There used to be a "too minor" reject reason, but this has been replaced with the much more strict "No improvement whatsoever" — this seems like a strong suggestion by the Stack Exchange overlords that even small edits should be accepted if they go in a positive direction.

That said, if you are making a small edit, it would be most awesome if you think about the post as a whole. Nice titles and tags really help the discoverability of old questions. (If you're looking at the review queue, consider the "improve this edit" option, too.)


You must log in to answer this question.

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