@RoryAlsop @pnuts thanks for your concern! I'm too busy travelling right now! Please answer for me in absentia!

booja

Hi Hippietrail

@GayotFow there was a famous / outrageous case where a judge decided a minor could represent him/herself, i am a bit hazy on details...

washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/… found it

@pnuts @JonathanReez you're right, there's a need for a tagging guide that should be agreed on on meta and then applied to the questions so that we're consistently. I think as soon as the two new moderators are elected, we have to work on that immediately

@pnuts You're right about the borken tags you mentioned. Again if I do a random edit of any part of the question, the tags automagically change into the correct one. But I just can edit every single question. That's 1) way too much work and 2) will definitively flood the front page

I approved the edit here but reading the answers to the question I feel I should not have done.

travel.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/69459

Maybe several people here can vote against the edit? (I do not see how to change my review.)

@pnuts I checked and fixed all the tags you mentioned to be broken. Let me know if you find more.

@Willeke I don't think that the wording has to be changed. For me, the first version sounds perfectly fine.

@RoflcoptrException that is what I thought after reading the answers, was not awake enough when hitting the 'approve' button.

Thanks

@RoflcoptrException Unfortunately, after 39 views (which is about "it" for meta), this is a vote for inconsistency.

@RoflcoptrException Will do. Unfortunately being "broken" makes them difficult to find, but the numbers are definitely declining. I hope you are not having to fix each Q separately (just one example for each broken tag). Have you had any help/feedback from a dev?

@RoflcoptrException I thought a tag edit (just to get [standard-visitor-visa] to [standard-visitor-visas]) was not bumping - but it seems it has been (and there are over 100 to go).

I notice also that the behaviour is different: [proof-of-funds] can be selected at edit but becomes [proof-provenance-of-funds] when saved, whereas selecting [standard-visitor-visa] picks that and its synonym.

If you look here it is evident they are not synonymising properly.

yo

Can we please reopen this question? It's been edited since and I can answer it quite well

IMO still too much a matter of opinion - maybe edit it further first?

@AdamElsodaney I did an edit to, hopefully, make it acceptable and voted to reopen. We'll see that @pnuts thinks.

Good enough :)

@pnuts I saw the earlier convo about edits and I'm very much guilty of picking apart Qs and tidying up the English although, mostly the lack of caps and incomplete/incorrect usage annoys. Do I need to back off and let the sort-of-undertandable question go?

According to some, yes, according to at least one other, no.

One of the founding objectives of SE was to improve English/communication skills.

there you go! LOL... at least I have you as a fellow traveller and you keep me amused. And that objective was exactly what I saw, and understood to bring value.

meta.travel.stackexchange.com/questions/4139/… may be of interest.

It is only my guess, but some viewers may be plugging Qs and As into Google to get results in (something like, sometimes!) their own language. Even 'minor' spelling mistakes can make quite a difference to machine translations.

We are supposed to be creating something "in perpetuity" and, IMO, should aim for excellence and not just adequate.

I am also a little concerned that if rep here ever grew to have any significance (say towards what it does on SO) our review queues would be swamped (as on SO - it is reporting over 1,000 outstanding at present and that is with only a small selection of VTCs included) by users trying to earn +2 (as on SO).

... unless users with edit privileges get to the mistakes first.

Well explained and a +1 from me on that link... in the time I've participated, I've deliberately backed off from the sparring matches that some, including some high rep ones, like to initiate. As tempted as I am on occasion, it serves little purpose, just as, I believe, asking anyone to not tag, clean up, edit, whatever does not serve any purpose. I doubt they'd do it face to face.

I see no harm in asking (active is my preferred view too) but so far of a dozen or so 'reasons' offered why edits should be 'suppressed' there has not been a single one that makes sense to me. Probably why so many - explain one away and another is cooked up in its place. Give me one good reason to stop and I'd be delighted to, editing is quite a chore! (and presumably why (a) others have not bothered, so (b) there is quite a backlog).

I'm always going to Review, should I be looking elsewhere for the backlog?

Dorothy, you do far more than your share so need not go looking anywhere. But if anyone were to want to there is no need to search. About 90% of Qs still would benefit from some further housekeeping - so in numbers maybe twice that if including As. I have gone looking but picked some markers that I expected to indicate the worst examples. And there is a mixture of the usual spelling/punctuation/capitalisation/layout/redundancy and tagging.

It seems that when creating new tags nobody bothered to apply them to other Qs (already posted) - where relevant.

Then I'll continue to fuss over new questions that can benefit from the copy editor in me. I was less confident in tags until much more recently, and do tag as I edit. It hadn't occurred to me to do tag reviews, but that makes complete sense.

The sooner any Q is edited (that needs editing!) the better the value from such an edit - more people will see it in its 'improved' form, fewer 'unimproved' and - in particular - should benefit those yet to answer (if only so they have a fixed rather than a moving target).

Editing the tags may bring a Q to the attention of someone who has favorited a tag and who might otherwise miss the Q.