# Flagging Archaeological Edits

The Archaeologist Badge requires one to have edited 100 posts that were inactive for 6 months. Now, I have no objection to people trying for this badge, but it can be slightly frustrating when someone makes a petty edit to an ancient post. Digging up old posts (and taking up the valuable space on the front page, mind!) should be for meaningful edits, not for minor ones.

Now, in the review queue there is a reject button for minor edits, but of course "minor" is in the eye of the beholder. However, I feel that one is less sympathetic to minor edits as the age of the post increases. My proposition is this:

If a post has lain inactive for 6 months but is edited and this edit is sent for review then in the review queue area a banner should be displayed saying "this post is older than 6 months".

(I should say that this proposition was "inspired" by a 2-year-old question which was edited to change OK to okay, along with some other petty things. My rub was that the correctness of okay over OK is debatable! But it was accepted...)

Bump: I would like to re-propose this proposal. This was brought on by this rather minor edit to a question which has lain dormant for (as near as makes to difference) four years. Also, the edit goes against the second comment (which has 7 upvotes)!

• Not all badges are badges of honor. Some (perhaps this one?) maybe badges of shame... – GEdgar Aug 9 '13 at 13:41
• I always say that the definition of "minor" is correlated to the age of the post. – Asaf Karagila Aug 10 '13 at 11:49
• – Asaf Karagila Aug 10 '13 at 11:50
• To further exemplify @GEdgar's point: The Fanatic badge is also a badge of shame... :P – apnorton Aug 11 '13 at 3:25
• What really bugs me is that all these edits changing 24 to $24$ are approved by someone. Even if this post wasn't old, the edit suggestion should have been rejected... – Grigory M May 22 '14 at 14:53
• ...I wish we could downvote/flag obviously incorrect edit reviews (with some system automagically revoking review privilege...). – Grigory M May 22 '14 at 14:55
• @GrigoryM Coincidentally, I suggested this a while ago! – user1729 May 22 '14 at 17:13
• The appeal to the comment from the linked question is wrong. Back then LaTeX was incredibly slow to compile. I believe it was before MathJax, or when it was in its early days. Either way, this doesn't apply here. – Asaf Karagila May 23 '14 at 8:31
• I am not disagreeing on your last point. I do, however, feel there is an importance for the math to be in a different font. Again, not important enough to edit four years old posts. – Asaf Karagila May 23 '14 at 8:43
• @Asaf I take your point about speed. Would you suggest that I just delete that bit, or leave it in and refer to these comments so that someone else does not make the same mistake? – user1729 May 23 '14 at 8:48
• (@Asaf sorry - I was trying to edit my above post but got distracted...posted the new version now and got rid of the old one...) – user1729 May 23 '14 at 8:50