Timeline for Decision on rejected edits should be displayed as a notification to the editor
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| May 8, 2012 at 1:36 | comment | added | Rob Hruska | That's exactly my approach. At least there are two of us being consistent about it. :) | |
| May 8, 2012 at 0:57 | comment | added | jmort253 | I think if there isn't much to improve, then a minor edit is ok. I typically accept minor edits unless I see a whole bunch of other typos, mispellings, grammar issues and formatting issues. If I have to edit the post myself for more than just a few missed items, I don't mark the suggested edit as helpful. I'm not sure if that's the right approach, but it is one that makes sense to me. | |
| May 8, 2012 at 0:51 | comment | added | Rob Hruska | I think part of the problem is also that the criteria for what should and shouldn't be approved is very ambiguous. We have "too minor" as a reject option, but then we've also heard that "any improvement is a good improvement". Not sure how we rectify that, though, either. | |
| May 7, 2012 at 22:12 | history | answered | jmort253 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |