15
\$\begingroup\$

This question was recently edited to add italics to a link to a spell. This edit was done after the question was already closed due to being a duplicate, and therefore put the question into the 'vote for reopen' queue.

Should we be editing closed questions in order to make styling updates if the edit doesn't also include an attempt to fix the question?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ A good question! Though my edit was mostly to add the tag for discoverability (the other part was just a formatting fix while I was editing it anyway). I'm not sure if there's any established policy or guidance on this, so thanks for asking it. (...Though there's no real way to "fix" a question that was rightly closed as a duplicate of another question.) I do know that the first edit after it's closed brings it back up in the reapproval queue, so I avoid doing this as the initial edit on a question that is just temporarily on hold while it's being fixed. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Dec 13 '18 at 4:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ Some related MSE posts: "Should we fixed up closed questions?" and "Should I still edit closed/bad posts to make them presentable?" and this one, sort of: "Add “Questions edited after closing” review task" \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jul 10 at 14:54
14
\$\begingroup\$

Save the first edit of an [on-hold] question for fixing the issue of the question (or working towards it)

As you implied in the question, after being put on hold, the first edit to the question will kick it into the queue to be reopened. This mechanic is there to make question fixes more visible and to help get those fixed question reopened.

However, if you make an edit to the question as the first edit that does not work towards fixing the question's closure issue, you are making it more difficult for that question to be reopened later. So, if you have an edit that doesn't help the question get reopened, save it until after either that first edit is made or the question gets reopened. After the first edit is made, there is generally no harm in making edits as usual.

Editing a question after it has been [on-hold] for 5 days and been moved to [closed] apparently does not move it into the review queue.

It is worth noting that making cosmetic changes to on-hold/closed questions that may not get reopened is not usually advantageous. If that question never gets fixed and reopened, that cosmetic change doesn't really matter and could be wasted effort. It is also possible that the question could go through drastic changes and the stuff you prettied-up might get removed or overwritten entirely, also becoming wasted effort.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ To be exact, "save the first edit [...] while the post is still [on-hold]". If the [on-hold] question is not edited until [closed] (5 days after closure), then the first edit will not kick the post to the reopen review queue. \$\endgroup\$ – Andrew T. Dec 14 '18 at 3:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Does this need some sort of edit now that [on hold] doesn't exist? \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jul 10 at 15:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 Yes! At the very least the wording should be. But I think the mechanics could be fleshed out a bit more. IIRC there's actually a timed aspect to it too. Thanks for the poke :) \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Jul 10 at 16:10
2
\$\begingroup\$

(Note, this is the same as my answer to the duplicate question I asked: Why shouldn't I edit a question that has been closed?)

Editing closed questions puts them back in the review queue, and if the edit was unrelated to the close reason, the question will be kept closed

Firstly, I will point out that I've done exactly the thing I ask about in the question, and it was V2Blast♦ who pointed out to me why I shouldn't do this. I've since abstained from doing this, but I've seen some users still do this; I just want to point out that I learned the hard way, and that's why I now know this.

If you edit a closed question, that triggers the question being put into the Reopen review queue. The intention behind this automatic behaviour is that, if a closed question is edited, the hope is that the edit is an attempt to rework the question into a "stackable" state. The reviews will consider the edit to see if it brings the question in line with the stack's expectations and votes to Reopon or Leave Closed accordingly (or make further edits, etc).

However, if the edits were of a trivial nature (by which I mean, not specifically related to the reason the question was closed), then when it gets put into the Reopen review queue, the actual content and question(s) remains the same, just with better tags or corrected spelling. In other words, the question now being reviewed is essentially the same question that was originally closed, so the reviewers will just vote to Leave Closed, since nothing significant has been changed.

Why is this a problem?

The problem with this is that "everybody gets one". Once the question has been through the Reopen review queue, that's it. It doesn't get another shot at it. If further edits are made later, it doesn't get put back into the Reopen review queue, so it will only be reopened if people happen to manually check back and take a look at the question, unrelated to the review queue.

Hence trivial edits can actually potentially prevent the question from being reopened if the OP does later edit the question into shape, because the question has already gone through the Reopen review queue due to the trivial edits.

Hold off on trivial edits until the OP has edited their question with relevant improvements

Once the question has been edited by the OP to include the information needed to consider reopening it (meaning, gets put into the Reopen review queue), then you can make more edits on top of that, because it would now be put into the review queue for the right reasons, and further "clean up" edits won't interrupt that process.

| |
\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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