How to handle mass minor edits from a user?

Question

Recently, a user has been filling up the suggested edits queue with very minor edits, most of the time by digging up old questions from last year, and fixing typos/formatting. This happens from time to time, but this is the second time recently that I've had 10+ such edits from that user to review.

I don't review too many edits myself, but I think I remember reading somewhere that minor edits should only be approved if the question is rather recent. Such edits should not be made to old questions, because it brings them back into the top questions list for no significant reason.

Is this still true today, or is it a rule I think I've read somewhere, but actually haven't? Should I keep rejecting these edits to keep the questions down the list, or should I consider approving them, since they usually do improve grammar and formatting?

If the solution is still to reject them, then aside from the chat (which the user might not use), is there any way I can reach out to that user and explain why I keep rejecting his edits like that? I'm considering contacting that member by email, but such information might not be available every time...

Answer 1

I have been reviewing the user's edits and, for the vast majority, they are actually quite helpful. Yes, they are more geared towards grammar and formatting, but overall, edits of this type do lift the quality of the site and they should be welcomed.

I have rejected a small proportion of them where the edits themselves may have been correct (grammatically, for example), but they were a classic example of lipstick on a pig, viz. this edit.

I would also draw your attention to the "Improve Edit" button: this gives you the option to include your own contributions to the edit to fill out any shortcomings of the original editor's revision. It is often a better outcome to continue to lift the quality of the site, rather than just reject any effort at improvement, irrespective of how minor you perceive it.

Answer 2

Before suggested edits were revamped last year, there was a rejection reason for this case. It read:

too minor - This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.

Now this is implicit in the "Reject and Edit" option, which implies that there was more wrong with the post that the editor should have fixed. Instead there's a new rejection reason:

no improvement whatsoever - This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

These two things make me think Stack Exchange's goal is to reject minor edits only if there were more important edits that the editor missed. They shouldn't just fix a missing apostrophe if half the post is in shambles and needs to be rewritten, but if the only things wrong with the post are minor errors, they might as well fix them.

As for telling the user they're messing up, the site will do that for you. If too high a proportion of a user's suggested edits are rejected, the system will ban them from suggesting new edits for a week, and tell them so when they try. They can look at their own history to see the reasons their previous edits were rejected.

Answer 3

I routinely reject any post which only changes grammar or spelling as "no improvement whatsoever". If the post makes the poster look ignorant, why should anyone correct it? If the editor can figure out what the poster meant so can the rest of us, and if not they are probably misrepresenting it. I admit the temptation to correct poor spelling, but count to 10 and it goes away.

I occasionally have people edit my posts. I find it offensive if they "correct" my grammar. My expression is sometimes idiosyncratic, but it is mine. If someone changes it they are misrepresenting me. If you really MUST edit someone's grammar you should have the manners to identify yourself.