It seems that the request in Allow short edits of posts was approved. However I feel that this power is being abused, e.g. changing 'E' to "e" in a question title.

I think the six-character minimum should be enforced. After all, it is enforced on Stack Overflow, and one incorrect character can be the difference between a working program and hundreds of compiler errors, or worse, runtime errors that go undetected. In math, variables are usually only one letter, and if even one character is wrong, it can easily ruin the entire problem. The Engilsh Language and Usage site also has this restriction. Russian Language and Usage should not be an exception.

As far as I know, the six-character minimum is enforced on the other sites specifically to prevent incidents like this. Additionally, consistency will make all of the Stack Exchange sites more user friendly.

  • 1
    What's bad at all in minor edits?
    – Quassnoi Mod
    Nov 29 '12 at 7:22
  • I didn't think it improved anything. I have no objection to changing cant to can't, for instance, even if it is only one character.
    – ctype.h
    Nov 29 '12 at 15:11

Ctype.h, I'm sorry you felt someone "abused" their powers for editing, but don't take it personal and on this level. You know on SE sites, editing happens continuously. :)

As you may know, SE sites work with privileges. The more reputation you gain, the more priviliges you have. The rationale behind this is that the more reputation means you are more expert in how SE works and also that you proved yourself to be interested in the site. Therefore, you are given privileges to help moderating.

The 6-character limit is for those who still haven't the privilege to edit without approval. On Beta sites this privilege is gained at 1000 rep, on graduated sites, at 2000 rep. Moderators, of course, can edit without approval.

But why this limit?

The main reason for having the 6-character limit and the "minor edit" suggested edit reject reason is because suggested edits take another user's time to approve. If you're going to take someone else's time, then you'd better fix as much as possible in the post

In any case, if you really don't like the edits, you can simply roll-back, but think this: did the edit really ruin your question? I'm sure Olga didn't intend to edit your question maliciously, she probably thought it would be better like this.

  • I realize that editing is a crucial part of the site, and I have edited many posts on other Stack Exchange sites. The edits were not harmful; I just didn't feel that the edits improved anything, which is what editing is for. I am sorry if I overreacted.
    – ctype.h
    Nov 29 '12 at 15:18
  • @ctype.h No problem at all! You had a concern, you came here: That's exactly what we expect users to do! It's worse to keep it to yourself as it might make things worse (in terms of social contact). Really, don't worry about it!
    – Alenanno
    Nov 29 '12 at 15:23
  • @ctype.h (/cc Alenanno) See meta.stackexchange.com/q/82865/178438 as well. Nov 30 '12 at 5:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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