https://ell.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/100816
This edit'd have fixed at least one typo in the original question. Seems two reviewers both missed it.
It is not easy for low-rep users to make edits due to the character count requirement. That is why a lot of proposed edits submitted for review seem to contain unnecessary changes. Their heart's in the right place, in most cases that I have seen. And I consider these edits valuable contributions to posts and to the community at large.
I understand the frustration a new contributor, keen to participate, faces trying to see their input make a difference. Brings me back to the days when I had the same kind of frustration. A lot of us have been there.
Why was my edit rejected, although I consider it substantial?
Not long after I first started submitting edit suggestions as a new user, I noticed a tendency here that edit suggestions addressing typos or minor grammar issues would most likely be rejected. The rationale behind it appears to be that minor issues in a post do not affect its readability. While that may be true, there is still a need to tidy up a post when a noticeable typo is in the title or the OP's made some obvious mistakes and meant to say something else. "Substantial" is not really a good litmus, because more often than not it could be subjective. A contribution in the right direction is a contribution, regardless of its character count.
Another oft-used explanation is that "we need to keep grammar errors in the question to evaluate OP's English proficiency." Well, it doesn't hold water. First, I doubt many users actually spend a lot of time gauging the questioner's English level before posting an answer. I have seen answers addressing really rudimentary things under a question about highly technical grammar. Second, some askers are happy to see their mistakes corrected, as they can learn from the corrections made to their post.
I am glad to see a possible shift away from this pattern in recent reviews. Rather than requiring all reviewers to follow the established "tradition", I think it is time we considered whether the stern, cookie-cutter reject is really a good policy.
More importantly, new users eager to make their contributions should not be discouraged! When you are a new member in a group and you try to leave a footprint in the community, it could be very disheartening to see your input, helpful albeit perhaps inconsiderable, rejected. It could feel like being given the cold shoulder, at least I felt that way occasionally when I was new here.
I am suggesting we make it easier for new users to feel welcomed and helped, and to feel their contributions useful and effective. I have brought this up in chat and here on Meta several times, and I am putting my foot down. I wish I were better-versed in psychology and communitarianism, but I am confident that there are terms and theory in psychology that explain how minor frustration, disapproval, rejection lead one away from a community.
The character change requirement in place makes sense because it prevents repeated minor edits from random users. But new users should not feel their suggestions/contributions are slighted or unwanted as a result.
