I've had a scan and can't find a specific meta question for this.

I'm at the stage where I'm being offered edits for review. There are quite a few edits where the change is to modify maybe two lines of formatting, or capitalise a number of words. Neither make any substantive change to the content.

I may prefer to read a post with proper capitalisation, but one or two lower case "i's" aren't going to ruin it for me.

Likewise, going through someone's post and turning three or four mentions of a command into command formatting helps, but is it a significant change.

When you go to review an edit, one of the rejection reasons is too trivial (or words to that effect). Is there any guidance on what is too trivial? Why would anyone reject a valid, but tiny update (like capitalising one word or replacing one command)?

  • 1
    The workflow for editing questions has changed dramatically and the "trivial" option no longer exists.
    – Anthon
    Oct 24, 2014 at 5:59

2 Answers 2


I agree with Tshepang, although I never was too concerned with a minor edit bumping the Question in the active page (that is because I don't use it that much, not because it is not important). Minor changes make the site better readable and help encourage newcomers who take an example of the questions they have looked at before they start typing their own, and thereby put some more effort in their question (be it formatting, proper spelling and/or grammar).

If the editor being reviewed, missed improvements, I add them, and if possible let the person know (e.g. when the lurk on the chat page). This is especially important if someone is on an edit spree (being seen several times a day on the suggested edits review queue) and if their omissions are structural. If the omissions are glaring, leaving out more than half of the improvements that could have been made, then I indicate the suggested edit was not helpful. Those editors that are conscious of the points they get will notice and investigate what they could have done to earn the 2 reputation, and often improve their way of editing.

If the minor edits include changes that make things worse, or are include invalid changes then I tend to reject the suggested edit and (especially when I am the second person to do so), go back in and do the appropriate changes. For me, YMMV, the changes I don't accept include those:

  • introducing incorrect spelling¹
  • changing bad grammar without creating a grammatical sentence¹
  • changing otherwise correct English to US-English
  • formatting of words that should not be formatted (such as acronyms formatted as commands: YaST→YaST)

Originally I was concerned to make sure "reviewable editors" would know how things are done here, to maintain some kind of uniformity (primarily with formatting). But not that many keep up the editing, or gain enough points quick enough to not get the feel for the site and have enough rep to make "bad" edits that no longer need to be reviewed. Still I do think of the review process of a chance to steer those willing to help improve the site, in a direction to maintain the uniformity.

Editors editing their first questions seldom start with doing any major (even if appropriate) rewriting, and I don't think we can expect that of them. The cost (in time) of the suggested edit review process, which is relatively high for minor edits, I see as the price to pay to be able to keep the site to my liking. If you are willing to pay that price as well, then maybe you can see it as a chance to educate someone that might contribute to site in the future.

¹ As a linguist by education, I am fully aware that spelling and grammar of language change over time, whatever the language fascists are trying to achieve to the contrary. On this site I am, however, more conservative with regards to this respect than normal, because any non-native speakers visiting here will have more difficulty understanding slang, neologisms and new spelling, than understanding the English written as they learned in school.


I would approve anything that I feel improves the post, regardless of how small that improvement is. I'd however scan if there are some other obvious improvements and do them myself. Note that some other reviewers are more demanding. Part of their concern, and the only one I can think of that's valid, is bumping a Question repeatedly. But that to me sounds like an unworthy workaround that would be fixed by some of what's suggested in this feature request.

You must log in to answer this question.

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