Return to Question

I'm getting pretty close to the reputation where I can start to edit others' posts, and I'm wondering what the etiquette for when (and when not) to do so.

I figure that I should edit in the following circumstances:

• Grammatical or spelling errors.
• Clarification where the meaning is not changed. For instance if the title does not describe the question very well.
• Where the user has made a very minor mistake that doesn't justify a full post to clarify.
• To add related resources or links that will help someone answer the post, or provide context

Before the commenting feature was added, I noticed that some moderators edit posts in order to insert a reply or extension to the post. I feel this isn't good etiquette (but I could be wrong) because I don't know what to do with their changes when I come to re-edit or respond.

I also feel that I should be very careful not to change the meaning of any question or answer, even if that meaning is misguided.

What other rules would be best practice?

• Signatures and fluff are discouraged and are fair game to be removed. See, for example, this post by Jeff Atwood and this post by Jon Skeet and also see What is the policy on signatures and links in answers for SO questions?. Also see Jeff Atwood's response in the comments to The Great Edit Wars

Return to FAQ Index

I'm getting pretty close to the reputation where I can start to edit others' posts, and I'm wondering what the etiquette for when (and when not) to do so.

I figure that I should edit in the following circumstances:

• Grammatical or spelling errors.
• Clarification where the meaning is not changed. For instance if the title does not describe the question very well.
• Where the user has made a very minor mistake that doesn't justify a full post to clarify.
• To add related resources or links that will help someone answer the post, or provide context

Before the commenting feature was added, I noticed that some moderators edit posts in order to insert a reply or extension to the post. I feel this isn't good etiquette (but I could be wrong) because I don't know what to do with their changes when I come to re-edit or respond.

I also feel that I should be very careful not to change the meaning of any question or answer, even if that meaning is misguided.

What other rules would be best practice?

• Signatures and fluff are discouraged and are fair game to be removed. See, for example, this post by Jeff Atwood and this post by Jon Skeet and also see What is the policy on signatures and links in answers for SO questions?. Also see Jeff Atwood's response in the comments to The Great Edit Wars

Return to FAQ Index

I'm getting pretty close to the reputation where I can start to edit others' posts, and I'm wondering what the etiquette for when (and when not) to do so.

I figure that I should edit in the following circumstances:

• Grammatical or spelling errors.
• Clarification where the meaning is not changed. For instance if the title does not describe the question very well.
• Where the user has made a very minor mistake that doesn't justify a full post to clarify.
• To add related resources or links that will help someone answer the post, or provide context

Before the commenting feature was added, I noticed that some moderators edit posts in order to insert a reply or extension to the post. I feel this isn't a good etiquette (but I could be wrong) because I don't know what to do with their changes when I come to re-edit or to respond.

I also feel that I should be very careful not to change the meaning of any question or answer, even if that meaning is misguided.

What other rules would be the best practice?

• Signatures and fluff are discouraged and are fair game to be removed. See, for example, this post by Jeff Atwood and this post by Jon Skeet and also see What is the policy on signatures and links in answers for SO questions?. Also see Jeff Atwood's response in the comments to The Great Edit Wars

Return to FAQ Index

I'm getting pretty close to the reputation where I can start to edit others' posts, and I'm wondering what the etiquette for when (and when not) to do so.

I figure that I should edit in the following circumstances:

• Grammatical or spelling errors.
• Clarification where the meaning is not changed. For instance if the title does not describe the question very well.
• Where the user has made a very minor mistake that doesn't justify a full post to clarify.
• To add related resources or links that will help someone answer the post, or provide context

Before the commenting feature was added, I noticed that some moderators edit posts in order to insert a reply or extension to the post. I feel this isn't good etiquette (but I could be wrong) because I don't know what to do with their changes when I come to re-edit or respond.

I also feel that I should be very careful not to change the meaning of any question or answer, even if that meaning is misguided.

What other rules would be best practice?

• Signatures and fluff are discouraged and are fair game to be removed. See, for example, this post by Jeff Atwood and this post by Jon Skeet and also see What is the policy on signatures and links in answers for SO questions?. Also see Jeff Atwood's response in the comments to The Great Edit Wars

Return to FAQ Index

I'm getting pretty close to the reputation where I can start to edit others' posts, and I'm wondering what the etiquette for when (and when not) to do so.

I figure that I should edit in the following circumstances:

• Grammatical or spelling errors.
• Clarification where the meaning is not changed. For instance if the title does not describe the question very well.
• Where the user has made a very minor mistake that doesn't justify a full post to clarify.
• To add related resources or links that will help someone answer the post, or provide context

Before the commenting feature was added, I noticed that some moderators edit posts in order to insert a reply or extension to the post. I feel this isn't good etiquette (but I could be wrong) because I don't know what to do with their changes when I come to re-edit or respond.

I also feel that I should be very careful not to change the meaning of any question or answer, even if that meaning is misguided.

What other rules would be best practice?

• Signatures and fluff are discouraged and are fair game to be removed. See, for example, this post by Jeff Atwood and this post by Jon Skeet and also see What is the policy on signatures and links in answers for SO questions?. Also see Jeff Atwood's response in the comments to The Great Edit Wars

Return to FAQ Index

I'm getting pretty close to the reputation where I can start to edit others' posts, and I'm wondering what the etiquette for when (and when not) to do so.

I figure that I should edit in the following circumstances:

• Grammatical or spelling errors.
• Clarification where the meaning is not changed. For instance if the title does not describe the question very well.
• Where the user has made a very minor mistake that doesn't justify a full post to clarify.
• To add related resources or links that will help someone answer the post, or provide context

Before the commenting feature was added, I noticed that some moderators edit posts in order to insert a reply or extension to the post. I feel this isn't a good etiquette (but I could be wrong) because I don't know what to do with their changes when I come to re-edit or to respond.

I also feel that I should be very careful not to change the meaning of any question or answer, even if that meaning is misguided.

What other rules would be the best practice?

• Signatures and fluff are discouraged and are fair game to be removed. See, for example, this post by Jeff Atwood and this post by Jon Skeet and also see What is the policy on signatures and links in answers for SO questions?. Also see Jeff Atwood's response in the comments to The Great Edit Wars

Return to FAQ Index