10
\$\begingroup\$

I'm mainly just curious as to why this edit ended up being approved. What possible benefit is adding a question mark to the title of a 3 year old question?

Perhaps this question will act as a reminder that edits should really have some substance and that ("trivial edits are discouraged"). Perhaps also there should be more guidance for users on the help pages as to when/what to edit, not just hidden away in the privileges section.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ This is just the nature of the stackexchange network, usually almost everthing gets approved, mostly due to gamification of the edit review queues. \$\endgroup\$ – PlasmaHH Dec 1 '17 at 23:30
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ trivial edits are discouraged yet at the same time there is the "Excavator" which the user in question received. One doesn't justify the other but rewarding for such things facilitates the trivial \$\endgroup\$ – JonRB Dec 2 '17 at 11:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I voted to approve this edit, and I do reject a lot of edits. I confess I was a bit conflicted because it is quite a superficial edit. But then, the addition of the question mark does seem correct. My point being, approving a trivial edit seems better than rejecting it just because it is not enough. I thought there was a requirement that an edit by someone that is not the OP required more than x characters be modified? \$\endgroup\$ – Wesley Lee Dec 2 '17 at 16:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ (And I try to not encourage repeated superficial edits by rejecting them if a user has many in a row). \$\endgroup\$ – Wesley Lee Dec 2 '17 at 16:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm actually surprised such an edit was possible. Isn't there a minimum 10 character limit for edits from <2K users? \$\endgroup\$ – Dmitry Grigoryev Dec 7 '17 at 13:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It's all about that 2 rep points! :P \$\endgroup\$ – KingDuken Dec 9 '17 at 5:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ What's worse are people whose only "contribution" is to make the rounds of several SE sites making purely stylistic capitalization changes in low quality five year old questions that then as a result dominate the front page to no benefit whatsoever. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Stratton Dec 12 '17 at 16:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Its mostly done by the newbies out here. Probably looking for some reputation. \$\endgroup\$ – Mitu Raj Dec 12 '17 at 19:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ Just sort your front page by "New" and all your worries about minor edits or Community's randomly bumping crap questions up to the top will be over. \$\endgroup\$ – The Photon Dec 13 '17 at 18:59
8
\$\begingroup\$

When reviewing an edit, there is really no "too trivial" reject-reason. This sometimes makes me accept changes that I would prefer to reject.

That there is no such reason makes me believe that the authors of this network wants them done.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ IIRC on stack overflow there was a "too minor" reject reason that was eliminated some time ago. The rationale was that a trivial edit was better than no edit, but my memory could be wrong here. Anyway, there still remains the guideline that if other edits could have been done, the trivial edit should be rejected: i.e. if the editor just corrected one typo out of five, the edit should be rejected, IIRC. \$\endgroup\$ – Lorenzo Donati -- Codidact.com Dec 7 '17 at 12:29
6
\$\begingroup\$

It's the people trying to get the one of the editing badges with doing minimal effort. Either that or it was really someone that was bugged about not having punctuation. Although a one character edit is frowned upon in my book, the edit did improve the question even if it was by an atomically small amount. Which is why I voted for this edit. It also takes several people to approve an edit.

Furthermore, you could improve the question further it often takes more time to comment on a question as it does to edit one, the site is probably better off editing questions.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ The fact that 3 people have to spend time reviewing the edit is the very reason to discourage 1-character edits. \$\endgroup\$ – Dmitry Grigoryev Dec 15 '17 at 13:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ If there is just one character, it doesn't take long to review the edit \$\endgroup\$ – Voltage Spike Dec 15 '17 at 20:42
3
\$\begingroup\$

As long as old posts don't float in droves to the top of the list, it's not a big issue

| |
\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

Based on meta and employee responses, trivial edits have become trivial and ignored. Any edit that helps a question, even if just punctuation or single character typo correction, is encouraged. As long as it doesn't hurt the question, it's allowed. Unless someone floods the edits queue or front page with multiple trivial corrections, then it's okay.

As to your title, adding punctuation to a question isn't technically pointless. Unless you mean that it lacks a "."

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I suppose "pointless" was the wrong term to use. I've changed the question title. \$\endgroup\$ – Tom Carpenter Dec 7 '17 at 17:46
1
\$\begingroup\$

There is pretty much a global SE policy for this, which goes like this:

Does the edit improve the post in some way? Making it easier to find or easier to read/understand? If none of this is true, it should be rejected as "no improvement whatsoever".

This applies here - the edit should have been rejected. The edit does not make the post easier to find, read or understand. Normally, correcting grammar/spelling errors do make posts easier to read/understand, but in this case the change was so minor that it really doesn't add anything.


More importantly, edits should address as many issues with the post as possible. Looking at the question, it is actually a rather bad one (despite the number of up-votes). Comparing a FPGA with a CPU is a very broad topic, and not necessarily meaningful unless specific hardware is mentioned. How to measure performance of a CPU is a very broad topic in itself. A complete answer to it would require the poster to write a whole book.

Digging further into this, we realize that the question was posted as "answer your own question to share knowledge Q&A style". This is fine, but questions posted this way need to live up to our general standard for questions. Just because you have a great answer coming, it doesn't mean that it is ok to write a sloppy question.

This question should have been closed as "too broad", not fixed!

Now, as it turns out, people have taken lots of effort posting answers to that question, so it wouldn't be a good idea to close it at this point. And EE tends to be more lenient towards overly broad questions than other sites on the SE network.

The proper course of action would probably be for a diamond moderator to put a "historial lock" on the post, meaning it will be preserved, but it is not a good example for how questions on EE should look like. This will also block further edits.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

This was directed at me and linked to one of my questions. I am glad. Sometimes I just see a clearer way of rewording a question. I learn new stuff and see error in my question and wish to fix it.

How to Edit

► fix grammatical or spelling errors

► clarify meaning without changing it

► correct minor mistakes

► add related resources or links

► always respect the original author

No matter how perfect an answer or question might be edits are going to be made. Th solution edits should have a day delay before the reviewer see it.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1 for everybody. Thanks \$\endgroup\$ – Procreator Dec 5 '17 at 21:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6403/… \$\endgroup\$ – Procreator Dec 7 '17 at 5:37
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ How exactly was this directed at you? You're not the author of the question or the edit, neither did you vote to approve or reject it. \$\endgroup\$ – Dmitry Grigoryev Dec 7 '17 at 13:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Procreator not directed at you at all. It was an approved edit by somebody else that was literally just one character that prompted my question. However I wasn't asking specifically about the linked question, just using the edit as an example. \$\endgroup\$ – Tom Carpenter Dec 7 '17 at 17:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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