I know short edits are discouraged, and rightly so, but I don't think they should be completely disallowed. Sometimes a single character can make a large difference. For example, "Frodo was Sam's employee" is wrong and in a discussion about their relationship, the edit to fix it to be "employer" is relevant and not, in my mind, a "bad" edit.
|
|
It's really rare that a single-character change is the only thing that can be improved in a post. Look for other possible improvements: fix other spelling errors, add links for references, etc. If all else fails, leave a comment. The topic has come up multiple times on the main meta site. The answer is always no, the limit won't change: Should tiny edits be accepted or rejected in review? — Remove trivial edit restriction — We're discouraged from fixing typos and misspellings on SE sites? — How to overcome “Edits must be at least 6 characters”? — pure code formatting, to enhance a question, is impossible (without 2k rep) — (and many more). |
|||||||||
|
|
This is a restriction on users with less than 2000 rep. This shows a serious dedication of time an effort, and is meant to stop people with very few reputation points make too many small edits. |
|||
|
|
