anyone about?

@santiago history chat is not the most synchronous around

history.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/18138 <-- talk about trivial edits

I guess you can mark me up as an apologist for "trivial" edits. I just finished making a one-letter one, at a user's request (it was a pretty glaring typo, once you saw it).

I think the last time I looked into it, the reason they got a bad name on SE sites was for the tendency they had to artificially pop an entire question back up to the top of the main page, for no good reason.

So now whenever something (eg an upvote) does that on one of my answers, I use that as an excuse to make another editing run. After all, its already been popped, so no harm in an edit now. :-)

I time my small edits for days when the stack is really slow and I'm only pushing down old content. A question that no one has seen in a year is more interesting than a question that's just been sitting at the top of the stack for days. But it is bad when a good question with only 30 views gets lost beneath a flurry of edits.

I don't think upvotes bump questions up...