Within the context of editing posts (questions and/or answers), SF&F regulations here state that:

Some common reasons to edit are:

  • to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes
  • to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
  • to correct minor mistakes or add addendums / updates as the post ages
  • to add related resources or hyperlinks

with an emphasis on the fact that

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

However, I recently started seeing quite a lot of old posts being edited with no improvement whatsoever. Here are a few examples (not listing all; its close to a hundred within the past fortnight):

Some of these edits are so trivial that the contributor merely deletes the available text then adds the same thing back again!

Is there any sort of action that should be taken by moderators with higher rep (or better knowledge about the SF&F) to avoid such things?

| |
  • 3
    Just to clear up a common misunderstanding that I’m sure you’re aware of: moderators are elected by the community we have 5. Higher rep users get some moderation privileges but they aren’t moderators just normal users. Also higher rep does not equal better at moderating, rep represents the ability to ask popular questions and write good answers/answer popular questions, nothing else really (to simplify it anyway). – TheLethalCarrot Feb 25 at 8:40
  • 3
    "merely deletes the available text then adds the same thing back again" - sometimes that's how it looks on the revisions page even if there is a significant change in (for example) formatting, markup, or a linked page. – Rand al'Thor Feb 25 at 8:45

These edits are improving the posts so there is no action to be taken except, maybe, saying thank you for taking the time to do it.

Wookiee and Wookieepedia are commonly misspelled and I know the editor in this case is going through correcting these typos. In your examples he also corrects old wikia links to the new fandom ones: a useful edit as we don’t know if the redirect will always work and it “upgrades” them to https.

The only oddity is in Example 2 but that looks to be a bugged edit summary in my opinion looking at what it renders as. Or the editor could have deleted new lines mid-sentence, that does sometimes show funny in the edit summary.

Overall if the editor isn’t flooding the homepage with old posts of the same tag, is keeping in with the 5 in 15 policy and is adding value, like here, there isn’t a problem.

| |
  • 6
    To be honest we should be glad the editor is going to the time to do this. There are hundreds of posts with this typo and it takes a lot of time and as demonstrated here it is a thankless task. I’ve experienced it myself in the past when I’ve been correcting some common problem in old posts. – TheLethalCarrot Feb 25 at 8:35
  • This seems quite logical. I thought that changing things such as http to https could be trivial. But that's just my opinion. – Shreedhar Feb 25 at 10:06
  • @Shreedhar wikia to fandom isn’t 100% trivial and to do it en masse we have to get SE employees involved. We have a request for it but until that’s auctioned, if ever, we have to do it by hand. So when fixing other things it’s usually a good idea, if you want/have the time to, to manually do them too. – TheLethalCarrot Feb 25 at 10:16
  • Regarding Example 2: if you look at the side-by-side markdown there is a significant amount of white space before those two words, possibly from the initial quote copy paste – fez Feb 25 at 14:04
  • What is the "5 in 15 policy"? – creative-username Feb 26 at 16:04
  • @creative-username One user should only have 5 edits out of the top 15 posts on the homepage at any one time. – TheLethalCarrot Feb 26 at 16:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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