Return to Answer

So long as there's good reason to think the post is improved by the edit, even if it's only improved a little bit, then the edit makes sense.

However, if you don't yet have enough reputation - so your edits need to be reviewed by others - then you should avoid edits that are small and unimportant (and most edits that are unimportant, even if not small), because someone has to actually review your edit and decide between accepting, rejecting, or improving it.

Therefore, users with 2000+ reputation may sometimes make edits that are quite acceptable, even though they might have been rejected if someone with less reputation made them. The issue is whether or not an edit is significant enough to be worth burdening reviewers.

Please note, though, that as far as I can tell, the majority of all edits on our site, including those by 2000+ rep users, would be quite appropriate for anyone to make, even if they had to be reviewed and approved. Even if, for example, you've just improved capitalization throughout the post, such an edit is pretty clearly major enough to be worth making, and ought to be approved (or improved, if applicable).

So long as there's good reason to think the post is improved by the edit, even if it's only improved a little bit, then the edit makes sense.

However, if you don't yet have enough reputation - so your edits need to be reviewed by others - then you should avoid edits that are small and unimportant (and most edits that are unimportant, even if not small), because someone has to actually review your edit and decide between accepting, rejecting, or improving it.

Therefore, users with 2000+ reputation may sometimes make edits that are quite acceptable, even though they might have been rejected if someone with less reputation made them. The issue is whether or not an edit is significant enough to be worth burdening reviewers.

Please note, though, that as far as I can tell, the majority of all edits on our site, including those by 2000+ rep users, would be quite appropriate for anyone to make, even if they had to be reviewed and approved. Even if, for example, you've just improved capitalization throughout the post, such an edit is pretty clearly major enough to be worth making, and ought to be approved (or improved, if applicable).

So long as there's good reason to think the post is improved by the edit, even if it's only improved a little bit, then the edit makes sense.

However, if you don't yet have enough reputation so your edits don't need to be reviewed by others, then you should avoid edits that are small and unimportant (and most edits that are unimportant, even if not small), because someone has to actually review your edit and decide between accepting, rejecting, or improving it.

Therefore, users with 2000+ reputation may sometimes make edits that are quite acceptable, even though they might have been rejected if someone with less reputation made them. The issue is whether or not an edit is significant enough to be worth burdening reviewers.

Please note, though, that as far as I can tell, the majority of all edits on our site, including those by 2000+ rep users, would be quite appropriate for anyone to make, even if they had to be reviewed and approved. Even if, for example, you've just improved capitalization throughout the post, such an edit is pretty clearly major enough to be worth making, and ought to be approved (or improved, if applicable).

So long as there's good reason to think the post is improved by the edit, even if it's only improved a little bit, then the edit makes sense.

However, if you don't yet have enough reputation - so your edits need to be reviewed by others - then you should avoid edits that are small and unimportant (and most edits that are unimportant, even if not small), because someone has to actually review your edit and decide between accepting, rejecting, or improving it.

Therefore, users with 2000+ reputation may sometimes make edits that are quite acceptable, even though they might have been rejected if someone with less reputation made them. The issue is whether or not an edit is significant enough to be worth burdening reviewers.

Please note, though, that as far as I can tell, the majority of all edits on our site, including those by 2000+ rep users, would be quite appropriate for anyone to make, even if they had to be reviewed and approved. Even if, for example, you've just improved capitalization throughout the post, such an edit is pretty clearly major enough to be worth making, and ought to be approved (or improved, if applicable).

So long as there's good reason to think the post is improved by the edit, even if it's only improved a little bit, then the edit make sense.

However, if you don't yet have enough reputation so your edits don't need to be reviewed by others, then you should avoid edits that are small and unimportant (and most edits that are unimportant, even if not small), because someone has to actually review your edit and decide between accepting, rejecting, or improving it.

Therefore, users with 2000+ reputation may sometimes make edits that are quite acceptable, even though they might have been rejected if someone with less reputation made them. The issue is whether or not an edit is significant enough to be worth burdening reviewers.

Please note, though, that as far as I can tell, the majority of all edits on our site, including those by 2000+ rep users, would be quite appropriate for anyone to make, even if they had to be reviewed and approved. Even if, for example, you've just improved capitalization throughout the post, such an edit is pretty clearly major enough to be worth making, and ought to be approved (or improved, if applicable).

So long as there's good reason to think the post is improved by the edit, even if it's only improved a little bit, then the edit makes sense.

However, if you don't yet have enough reputation so your edits don't need to be reviewed by others, then you should avoid edits that are small and unimportant (and most edits that are unimportant, even if not small), because someone has to actually review your edit and decide between accepting, rejecting, or improving it.

Therefore, users with 2000+ reputation may sometimes make edits that are quite acceptable, even though they might have been rejected if someone with less reputation made them. The issue is whether or not an edit is significant enough to be worth burdening reviewers.

Please note, though, that as far as I can tell, the majority of all edits on our site, including those by 2000+ rep users, would be quite appropriate for anyone to make, even if they had to be reviewed and approved. Even if, for example, you've just improved capitalization throughout the post, such an edit is pretty clearly major enough to be worth making, and ought to be approved (or improved, if applicable).