2

I submitted this suggested edit to replace "amount of guns" (which is grammatically incorrect as "gun" is a countable noun) with "number of guns", but it was rejected with the following reason:

The edit does not improve the quality of the post. Changes to the content are unnecessary or make the post more confusing.

Was this edit suggestion incorrect, or is there a policy not to fix grammatical errors?

8

Your edit suggestion had two reject votes and one approval vote, and I was one of the votes to reject the edit. Normally I would've approved the sort of small edit you made if it was made to a new post, however you made this small edit to a very old answer, and edits to old posts are generally discouraged if it doesn't make a substantial change.

In the help center, you can see how editing is intended to work on this page. The relevant parts for your edit:

Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged - try to make the post significantly better when you edit, correcting all problems that you observe.

...

Editing a post also bumps the question to the top of the homepage. Please be mindful of this and make your edits count, so that the new attention is brought to something substantial.

Fixing grammar on a couple words is a pretty minor fix: I don't think it's a 'tiny' or 'trivial' one, but it also doesn't really make the post 'significantly better' so it's kind of a borderline case. But that answer that you edited is nearly a decade old, and the second point from the help center suggests that editing old posts should be done if it will bring attention to 'something substantial'. Putting both of those together, I didn't think I should accept the edit.

In short, fixing a couple words on a new post is probably fine, making significant fixes to an old post is also probably fine, but just fixing a couple words on an old post isn't really worthwhile.

2
  • Ironically, a 3 year old post of mine was just edited to replace a hyphen with an en dash.
    – forest
    Jun 21 at 20:28
  • 1
    @forest: Now that's some real pedantry, a true dedication to punctuation. Though I think it's great for the most part, the lack of to-the-letter moderation can definitely cause wide differences in how different people help enforce rules.
    – Giter
    Jun 21 at 21:46
2

I think the edit suggestion was fine. Two people rejected it, another approved it.

Typically when you edit you should fix everything wrong with the post. The rejection votes were probably based on this principle, since you only corrected two words. However, reading through the post, I found no other errors, so maybe it should have been approved. Personally, if I commit to editing one post, I also commit to editing the entire page, but it's been so long since I've had the edit privilege I don't really know what it's like having to wait for the approval votes to see it.

My opinion: it was a good edit and should have been approved.

You must log in to answer this question.

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