Tag Info

I agree with you, there should almost never be any indication of edits. Posts on Stack Exchange are meant for the long term. Only a tiny fraction of readers will have seen the pre-edit version of the post, so the post should not be optimized for them. The post should read naturally. When you write a book, you don't write “EDIT: added a comma” — so don't do ...

If an edit to a closed question falls far short of giving it a better chance of being reopened, please reject it as “no improvement whatsoever”. And to editors: please don't make such trivial edits. For example, if a question is an off-topic programming question with badly formatted code, don't bother formatting the code. If you like to do this, there are ...

It's ok, and even encouraged, to edit questions to clarify them. It is not ok to edit questions to significantly change their meaning. There can be a tolerance for an unanswered question, especially if the question as is would be closed. In particular, invalidating answers should be avoided. Sometimes it cannot be avoided if different answerers interpreted ...

I basically agree. If it's just a one or two capitalization errors in an old post, I agree that an edit that fixes only those is too minor: such edits are better avoided. On the other hand, if there are extensive capitalization errors, such that the fix makes a substantial improvement to the answer, then such an edit could be appropriate. It would be nice ...

This is a general answer. If someone is editing your question and you think they did it wrong, feel free to roll-back their changes. Most likely there was some misunderstanding going on. I would recommend the following to improve your question after the roll-back. Try to make your question clearer. Check what the editor had got wrong and why. Extend or ...

I usually use "Edit:" to indicate when something has changed that requires acknowledgement. For instance, someone may have commented or said something in an answer that made me realise I should improve my answer, or a comment has been useful and I changed the question to address it. Even so, I use this to flag the change and acknowledge what prompted it, ...

This site works differently from others you might be used to. A large part of our mission is to build up an archive of high-quality questions & answers, that will be useful not only to the poster but also to others in the future. To support that goal, we encourage collaborative editing to improve questions and answers, so that they'll be more likely to ...

I agree with you. It's bad practice to make a large change to the question that changes its meaning, particularly when the question has already received an answer and the change invalidates the existing answer. (I consider this to be true regardless of whether it is the original author making the edit or someone else.) In this case I am sympathetic to the ...

It's certainly possible, using the standard LaTeX environments: $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 2 & 3 \\ 4 & 5 & 6 \\ 7 & 8 & 9 \end{pmatrix}$ yields: See here for details and variants.

It can be appropriate to retag a question to use tags that the asker wouldn't have thought of before reading the answers. If the asker's problem is a well-known one and the solution intrinsically calls for concepts that the asker didn't know about, then adding tags corresponding to these concepts is warranted. Fictional example: someone asks whether it's ...

It took me a while to figure out why you thought this sentence had any purpose. Oh, you wanted a better solution than the answer you'd posted? As a general principle, your question should stand on its own: refering to an answer doesn't make sense. In any case, it's obvious that you'd be looking for the best answer (for some value of best that you neglected ...

I apologize: I deleted your answer because it didn't answer the question as it then was, but I hadn't realized that the question had been edited beyond recognition and your answer was perfectly legitimate for the question as it was at the time. It is definitely bad practice to edit a question in such a way that existing answers are invalidated. The only ...

Assuming that your edit did, in fact, correct a bug in an answer, it was welcome and this rejection reason does not make sense. Edits to “correct minor mistakes” are encouraged. Thank you! Without seeing the edit in question and without asking the person who rejected it, it is difficult to know why they picked this rejection reason. They may have made a ...

The first thing what I want to mention: correcting grammar makes the things better, it is generally a positive and not a negative deed, even if it is minor. But: despite that it is a positive thing in a general sense, it may be harmful on the current limitations of the SE system. In most cases, highly qualified experts of an area have perfect grammar. If ...