Tag Info

No, they don't add value. In some cases, they detract and should be removed. It's a more common problem on SO, but I do occasionally see it on SF: A post will have code or a shell script where the quotes have been replaced with these Unicode characters in the code, causing the code or script to break. These should be edited out and replaced with their ASCII ...

Yes, this sort of edit improves the answer. Ideally, answers (and questions!) should be well-written and not contain notes about the editing process or any other irrelevancies such as signatures. They should be able to stand on their own. Imagine, if you will, reading a history book and suddenly coming across "EDIT: I expanded this paragraph to explain ...

This is precisely the definition of an edit which is too minor. If we accept that this adds value and should be approved, we must accept virtually anything. The edit doesn't materially improve the legibility of the post, much less the correctness, and requires working around the automatic filter to submit in most cases. More importantly, it bumps the post ...

Absolutely. Part of the draw of this site and a big reason for its quality is that you don't have to wade through chat and sequencing stuff and history to get to the solution you want. For much the same reason we don't like taglines and signatures, don't preserve temporal order in answers, and don't allow replies to anything except in comments, we shouldn'...

No, not really. Yes, the Unicode representations of quotes and ellipses are “better” than ASCII in that they're closer to their literary counterparts, but we are not a publication. First and foremost, we are a knowledgebase focused on ease of editing. The ASCII character set has its roots firmly embedded into our keyboard punctuation and isn't going away ...

I'm going to have to agree with Sven. I have a lot of respect for you ewwhite, particularly since you guided me away from taking the wrong behavior hints from the rest of the community when I was a newbie, but I think this is a good opportunity for me to return the favor. Putting aside my own (less than favorable) opinions of Hans Reiser, I think you're ...

Can you explain to me how posting a mugshot of Reiser contributed in any way to the technical discussion regarding the file system he developed? Regardless of what he did, he is still a human being and has rights and this part of your post was beyond disrespectful. Frankly, I find this appalling and I can't understand why you even object to have this part ...

Why the system only notifies users when their edits are approved and not when they are rejected is indeed puzzling. The reviewers who reject an edit do have to provide a reason for their rejection, either by choosing among a set of standard reasons or by typing in their own. There is a question on Meta Stack Exchange with some more information. There are ...

I always thought it was kind of silly to require someone who has a high enough reputation to edit a post themselves without approval from others must get approval from others to approve someone else's suggested edit. One of these days I'll be bored enough to go look for why that is still a thing. In the meantime I went to the suggested edits queue and got ...

There is nothing that anyone here on ServerFault can do about this*. The 6-character minimum is part of the software used across all SE sites and is unlikely to be changed. Looking on meta.SE (where issues that affect all SE sites are raised), I see that it has been suggested to remove the limit for text inside code blocks: Is it a good idea to either drop ...

I haven't been tracking the review-queues for various reasons, thanks for bringing up the lack of community involvement in the edit queue. That's one a moderator can help clean out with less controversy (our votes are binding, for everyone else you need a vote-count) than the close/re-open queues.

In general, yes editing is encouraged! When you edit a question or an answer (and you don't have >2k reputation yet) it is entered in a review queue for peer review. Edits remain in a pending state until they get enough votes to either approve them and make the edits take effect or reject them and discard the edit. Two votes in either direction will ...

Pulling up the review, it looks like one community member approved, but two others thought your edit was more appropriate as a comment. They voted "attempt to reply": "This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer." The review ends when two people have reviewed ...

Edits should strive to be "seamless", and when done right, the entire answer should continue to read as though it was the work of a single author. It was the jarring "key change" (as it were), between the original answer and your edit, that triggered the "attempt to reply" reflex (honestly, I think I probably would have reviewed that edit the same way ...

I believe this is by design. I have never received notifications of edits to my content, only ever suggested edits. You can see edit list under Responses > Revisions in your profile:

ASCII is more portable than unicode, and for that reason I would consider it to be preferred, whenever it does not break the meaning of the text. Given that ASCII was designed to express English, it is hard to imagine an English sentence, which cannot be expressed in ASCII. Replacing correctly used ASCII characters with unicode in my opinion removes value. ...

As long as the two forms are semantically identical, and you note that the original has been modified for readability, I don't think there's any major problem.

Should we do something about these minor edits? Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged and should be rejected when you encounter them in the review queue. Although it is a good thing to edit and improve incorrect and outdated content the main disadvantage is that even a minor edit (on an older Q&A) bumps it to front page. So make your edits count on ...