It is important for every member of our community to edit the questions and answers in order to enhance the quality of our site.

There are several reasons for editing. Few of them are

  1. To remove spelling mistakes
  2. To improve grammar
  3. To rephrase sentences
  4. To add relevant tags
  5. To fix technical issues
  6. To help new users
  7. To improve posts that are vague with the help of comments from the asker and so on.................

And after editing the post, it is optional to provide the edit summary. In general, I ignore the edit summary. And I am unaware of how it will be useful to anyone later.

In this context, I want to know how important it is to provide the edit summary?

Suppose the activities like asking questions, answering questions, upvoting and downvoting questions are so much important. Editing and improving existing questions are also comparably important. I want to know the relative importance of providing the edit summary so that I can be more focused on the task.


2 Answers 2


I don't think you need to provide a custom edit summary for every edit, especially when you already have the privilege to edit posts automatically.

In fact, if you have the privilege to automatically edit posts, then it means that, in theory, the community trusts you and that you're going to edit posts appropriately, which means that, for example, you will not make the post unclearer, introduce inappropriate tags or change the meaning of the question.

In particular, unless you want, I would say that there's no need to provide an edit summary when you're just fixing typos or improving the language. However, if you're making a substantial edit, e.g. removing unnecessary details, changing all tags, completely rewriting the title, or even rewriting the question completely differently (but make sure that the meaning of the questions is the same!), then, in that case, I really encourage you to provide an edit comment, which summarises and motivates your edit. See this example.


If you're suggesting an edit, and this is from experience, a good, descriptive edit reason is going to ensure your edit goes through. I've had at least one edit rejected cause I had an excessively clever edit reason involving grumpy cat which made no sense. Even Random, mysterious edit reason writer in chief on Super User now gives a reason (in brackets) for edits

I would treat this as I would a commit to a git repository. Its harder to see a small edit at a glance than a big one. I'd also add as a active user on a larger site with a significant number of questions, you're not going to remember a post you did 10 years ago, and you might find yourself looking at something just as old for answers. Spending the extra minute or so for a descriptive edit reason just like the ones you've posted above is an investment in the future

So I would say yeah, there's value in it. Its not mandatory but its good practice.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .