2

(This question is a feature-request on the site infrastructure, i.e. interaction mechanics, not on the edit/review policy.)

The issue of minor edits often crop up in various ways:

On one hand, many minor edits are well-intentioned, i.e. they improve the question or answer, and these improvements accumulate.

On the other hand, when minor edits and major edits are put into the same review queue, it overburdens reviewers. For this reason, the current practice (for some people) is to summarily reject minor edits, to discourage people from making minor edits in the future.

I would argue that:

  • Discouraging people from making minor edits is ineffective, since they were not being told why it was rejected - they only knew it was rejected. To discourage effectively, the message need to be seen by the prospective edit submitter before they begin editing.
  • Discouraging people from making minor edits, in general, is a negative user experience (negative emotions), even if well-intentioned.

Hence,

  • I am proposing a technical solution to the reviewer over-burdening problem: to put them into different queues, and to let reviewers choose what kind of edits (minor / major) they want to work on.

  • In the beginning, we let edit submitters self-indicate whether this edit shall be flagged as being minor. In parallel to this, we can also implement statistical means (in the backend) to classify an edit as being minor or major.

(Please migrate, or copy-paste-delete this to the appropriate meta forum. Thanks.)

  • 1
    official position seems to be that no edits should be considered too minor; they even removed respective reject reason a while ago. See What guidance should be given when edits are rejected? 'I'm hoping to get rid of the "too minor" edit rejection reason, in favor of a more direct way of indicating edits that fail to significantly improve a post...' – gnat Feb 13 '17 at 6:58
  • but minor edits are a easy way to farm reps. – Walfrat Feb 14 '17 at 8:26
  • @Walfrat: We can stop giving out reps for minor edits. There are pros and cons. Personally I think it is necessary for new users to have a way to farm reps when a site has grown to a certain scale that asking or answering a highly meaningful yet novel (new) question becomes difficult or impossible. On the other hand, the site might need to think about whether new users might participate (contribute) in any way whatsoever; it is possible (though undesirable) that a site may have the collective sentiment to exclude all new users completely. – rwong Feb 14 '17 at 16:21
  • @rwong I know I was just stating a fact. ANiway you can't farm more than 2k rep with that, once you ave full edit privilege this doesn't work anymore. – Walfrat Feb 15 '17 at 8:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .