4
\$\begingroup\$

From https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit :

Try to make the post substantively better when you edit, not just change a single character. Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged.

So, basically, this covers most minor spelling and grammar fixes. These are not only discouraged, but actively blocked: in many cases, a spelling error cannot be corrected unless the person correcting it can find at least 5 other characters they can justify changing at the same time. Why is this done? If someone misspelled a word in an otherwise good question or answer, and another citizen corrects that misspelling, without changing anything else, then the latter person has left that question, and therefore this site as a whole, better than they found it. What is the upside to discouraging that?

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you find these, you also have the option of entering chat and asking a 2ker for help. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Sep 21, 2014 at 2:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener I do have 2k+ rep. The question isn't just about low-rep citizens being stopped by the system from making such edits, though that is a significant part of it, it's also about why they are discouraged at all (the discouragement applies equally regardless of reputation). \$\endgroup\$
    – Matthew Najmon
    Sep 21, 2014 at 4:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Since this is an Exchange-wide policy rather than something RPG.SE itself could change without the other Stacks getting affected, maybe meta.se would be a better place for it? \$\endgroup\$
    – BESW
    Sep 21, 2014 at 5:29

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
8
\$\begingroup\$

Mostly because every edit bumps to post to the top of the home page.

But more importantly, 99.99% of the time something else in the post could use a cleanup and you should do that too while your there to save someone else the trouble in the future.

Note: this minor edit issue is only in place for those with <2000 reputation, in part to keep you from making a ton of single letter edits and getting the reputation for them.

So we have 3 reasons to prevent minor edits: all edits bump, there is always something else to do on a post, and to prevent gaming of the reputation system. Really the middle reason is the most important one though. The idea here is to create and curate a great resource for gamers. If we're spending time making trivial edits, we aren't serving that porpoise.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ The second of these is simply not true in my experience: there have been tons of spelling mistakes over the last couple of years that I've let stay mistaken because I couldn't find 5 more characters to change. The other two of these seem better served not by forbidding the change, but by changing how the system treats that change when it does happen. Instead of rejecting any edit less than 6 characters, exclude such edits from bumping to top of page, and disqualify them for the 2 reputation points, but still let the word end up spelled correctly. \$\endgroup\$
    – Matthew Najmon
    Sep 21, 2014 at 1:39
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ nonbumping edits not an option. Trust me, that fight's been waged more than once and isn't worth attempting again, the need for peer review is that strong. \$\endgroup\$
    – wax eagle
    Sep 21, 2014 at 1:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ Then let it bump. One extra bump one time is still better than a mistake staying mistaken for posterity. That is still supposed to be the goal here, right? To leave something useful for posterity, not just addressing the current issue in isolation? \$\endgroup\$
    – Matthew Najmon
    Sep 21, 2014 at 2:15
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @MatthewNajmon Higher-rep users can do those one-letter edits, don't worry. The system just reserves that privilege for users who presumably have enough experience to know when it's worth bumping a question for just one letter, and when it isn't. \$\endgroup\$
    – SevenSidedDie
    Sep 21, 2014 at 18:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ Four paragraphs, four glaring grammatical errors, as well as a few more stylistic ones. I could fix them all - but none of them would improve the content of the answer. Was this deliberate irony? Was it a trap? A shame @waxeagle hasn't been seen in years. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Aug 29, 2020 at 4:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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