Timeline for Am I being too pedantic with spelling in reviewing question titles?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Oct 5, 2015 at 23:05 | comment | added | Sammaye | @Tas yes, I would have fixed the spelling for SO search, since that search is primitive, however, the real visibility problem is with mostly Google since 98% of searching occurs there and people seemed to think Google is primitive in it's working. Tbh your edit being rejected might be down to even the time of day you did it, to one set of reviewers they would reject, another they would accept. Your non spelling check edits were very opinionated in terms of reviewing | |
| Oct 5, 2015 at 22:53 | comment | added | Tas | With regards to "dependant" vs "dependent" in Google and other big search engines, I have no doubts (plus you've confirmed) that Google is able to predict the correct usage; however, Stack Overflow's search cannot. Searching Stack Overflow for dependant and dependent gives different results. I generally don't go overboard with grammatical fixes if I feel it doesn't make the question or sentence easier to read (which is more important than proper grammar). Case in point: I didn't add a question mark to this question. If my edit had been rejected and updated to be more grammatical I'd understand | |
| Oct 4, 2015 at 22:21 | comment | added | Sammaye | @duplode I am not sure about that answer. The BBC site (which I consider to be slightly authoritative since I am UK English) actually sides with the answer below the accepted one. The guy who linked it did not actually read what he was linking. | |
| Oct 4, 2015 at 22:17 | comment | added | duplode | It seems the comma is optional but allowed though. | |
| Oct 4, 2015 at 22:16 | comment | added | Sammaye |
@duplode mind you if we were to be really pedantic: technically "with" is the wrong word in the first place...this is the problem when you allow people to make edits based on the finer points of grammar :/
|
|
| Oct 4, 2015 at 22:13 | comment | added | Sammaye | @duplode true, maybe omit "but" and add "with"? | |
| Oct 4, 2015 at 22:12 | comment | added | duplode | On the other hand, the missing "with" breaks parallelism of the coordinated sentences. | |
| Oct 4, 2015 at 22:10 | comment | added | Sammaye | @duplode in fact actually "but" does not normally have a comma before it, definitely not in that modified title so actually the edit is grammatically incorrect | |
| Oct 4, 2015 at 22:09 | comment | added | Sammaye | @duplode well, the comma is there which means it is not actually incorrect | |
| Oct 4, 2015 at 22:08 | comment | added | duplode | Proper <s>grammar</s> sentence construction can make a sentence easier to parse. In this example, the "but... with" makes it instantly obvious "clang/gcc" is in direct contrast with "Visual Studio". I find the edited version far easier to read. | |
| Oct 4, 2015 at 22:01 | comment | added | Sammaye | @duplode hmm, I would argue that adding the expletives makes the title harder to read. The words are noise (like Hello or Thanks on questions), but that comes down to personal preference I guess. | |
| Oct 4, 2015 at 21:56 | comment | added | duplode | Your argument is reasonable, and I understand why minor edits are frowned upon, but I'm not sure I agree. Regardless of SEO, the title is the most visible part of a Q&A. The way I see it, any edit that makes a title substantially cleaner or more readable is not minor enough to be rejected. | |
| Oct 4, 2015 at 21:44 | history | answered | Sammaye | CC BY-SA 3.0 |