I've noticed a number of suggested edits in the queue for very old questions (3+ years ago) where the edit does nothing but tweak the question's phrasing, capitalization, or punctuation. While the edits probably do improve the question marginally, my inclination is to reject the edit because it doesn't make a substantial improvement and needlessly re-raises a long-settled issue on the homepage.

Is there a community recommendation or consensus on this, though? Should these edits typically be pushed through, since they are in good faith and improve the question in a small way? I don't want to be "that guy" pushing Reject, Reject, Reject.

1 Answer 1


I too am more likely to reject an edit if it is on a very old post. An edit to a year(s) old post needs to carry more weight to go through most of the time.

To be honest, though, I typically don't accept purely superficial edits on any post which is more than a day old.

  • I tend to use that approach too. I know if you are a newish user that getting edits accepted can be a way to grow your rep, but it should still be worthwhile making the changes.
    – Dave Humm
    Mar 20, 2018 at 12:28
  • Its more likely newbies trying to get more points on SE though initial edits. Mar 20, 2018 at 22:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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