Hot answers tagged

7

1) My original question was "edited", in ways that add nothing meaningful (slight changes in words, but not meaning or fixes in grammar). This edit was standard protocol: we discourage writing tags in titles. That means a title of "How do I foo?" is preferable to "Unity: How do I foo?" when the question is also tagged unity. An edit to remove that single ...


6

Except in situations where questions are closed because we don't have enough information, feel free to edit the question to fit with the rules of the site. Be bold. The outcomes from this are: We now have a question that can be answered, thus improving the site. OR The user comes back and fixes the question you edited to mean what they really wanted, thus ...


5

Licensing Implications In regards to potential licensing issues, unless glaringly obvious (watermarks, do not copy, etc. ), I would not worry about it. I can see several reasons; I will go in to them in greater detail. Ultimately, if you do not feel comfortable with it, do not do it. Just because something is legally right, does not mean to say it is ...


4

I would have approved the edit had I found it in edit review queue. And I would have made similar edits if I came across the question in the new posts review queue. You applied your best sense of judgement; I don't see that as over stepping. And the risk in this case is low - if you had erred, your changes could have been rolled back. I agree that the use of ...


3

(I started to write this before the other answer was posted, but could not finish it earlier, so I'm posting it anyway. The other answer is good and I have upvoted it.) I think one of the reasons why we don't have a vast array of font sizes and colours available for editing questions is to try and keep some consistency across the site. In line with that, the ...


3

It is generally suggested that you update the question post and add this kind of details in it instead of adding notes as comments (comments are volatile). If you can integrate the new information in the post instead of adding an "Edit:" section, that would be the best. You can add more details and narrow the scope. What's not allowed is changing the scope ...


3

These kinds of mass editing events are rare. There isn't a way for us to edit these questions without rising to the top of the active list. If you're interested in seeing the newest questions, I suggest you sort your question list by "Newest" instead of "Active": This is how I typically view the main page, so I can address the newest questions. The "...


2

OP here. It took me over a hour to compose that question plus at least 3-4 cancelled attempts in days before, because I already have experience with pedantic privileged users who bite when they see a tiniest bit of imperfection or non-conformance on StackOverflow. Nowadays I know I can only ask a question on any SE that can be answered with a black on ...


2

(robotic voice) Directive, commander? Analyse the present situation. (robotic voice) Affirmative. Commencing analysis and outcome simulation. From Dr Strangelove's war room scene; coloured DEFCON-style by unknown artist Mission briefing Situation: The core question is good. The most valuable answers homed in on it. However, the asker's polling-...


2

I think it certainly could have been saved at one point. However, now that it has a number of answers, those answers are all answering the question as it is now. Even if we could find a way to change the question to be good subjective, it would mean either eliminating a number of the answers, or finding ways to heavily modify them as well. It highlights the ...


1

When you edit questions, your goal is to make them more understandable and possibly future-proof. If this means to reupload and/or inline them, then do it. Putting the images in the text can make the reader's life easier, because they don't need to jump between sites, especially if it contains crucial information for the answer. However, before doing this, ...


1

The core functionality of the Edit button has not changed, and you can make tag-only edits within reason. I have previously encountered situations where I only wished to change a tag, but the edit was "too minimal". That said, I was able to submit an edit to a question where I only removed the unityscript tag1. I was required to submit a manual edit ...


1

Since I rejected both, I'll give my rationale for doing so. I think minor edits are typically OK. The edits you made are minor and I would accept them if the questions they were contained in were more recently active. The country change was borderline too minor and since the post hasn't been active in a month I rejected it. The communicative edit was more ...


1

As best I can tell msell made an improve action on your edit rather than just approving it. That automatically copies the edit comment. It is to avoid bumping the question multiple times, if a mini-mod during review find a small flaw in an otherwise good edit he can fix that flaw before approving, the result in the history looks like two edits at the same ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible