Timeline for What to do about good suggested edits with very bad summaries?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 2012 at 7:47 | vote | accept | Eliah Kagan | ||
| Jul 3, 2012 at 16:59 | comment | added | Thomas Ward Mod | I never comment minor fixes, 95% of the time the reviewer of an edit needs to review the edit content, not just the summary... wait a second, didnt i say something like this about "Oh, I'm the OP" summary'd edits...? | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 9:07 | comment | added | Mahesh | I do not see such clear distinction between these two kinds of edit summaries.. But everyone may have a different opinion. :) | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 8:57 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | Edits without summaries will carry automatically generated, non-semantic summaries, like "added tags" and "added xxx chars in body." As I discussed in my original question above, these are far more useful than a summary like "Improved question." They're most often not ideal, but they clearly denote the basic nature, and the extent, of the edit. | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 7:28 | comment | added | ish | Also, a prolific editor will probably appear in chat at some point, when he/she can be "set straight"... | |
| Jun 21, 2012 at 7:26 | history | edited | ish | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added xxx chars :P
|
| Jun 21, 2012 at 7:12 | history | answered | Mahesh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |