There have been several examples recently, a couple from today:

i am a uk citizen and have a 2 year holiday visa for canada. can i visit my family in England

was edited to:

i am a uk citizen and have a 2 year work permit (IEC) for canada. can i visit my family in England

with the rationale edit question to match info in OP's comment (I see no such Comment).

The time to come from terminal A to terminal C on airport Pistarino, Buenos Aires

was edited to:

The time to come from terminal A to terminal C on airport Pistarino, Buenos Aires (EZE)

and the tagging changed from to

(Separately, note the advice here).

Neither of those who posted the above Qs has yet reverted [†] and both are only "Member since today".

If they never return then radically changing a question to make more sense (and in particular to better fit the As that each Q now has) is to salvage something constructive out of a bit of a mess.

However, without feedback from OP no one can be sure that radical changes truly reflect the OP's intent. If the changes do not do so it seems new users in particular may decide that what they really did want to know is never going to be answered on TSE, so manage without or look elsewhere.

(Separately, if whatever is asked and however badly is edited "into shape" by other users this hardly motivates users to bother to take care with their post.)

[†] I have just seen one of the users did revert, though with a Comment that does not clarify much: the visa is a working holiday visa (but more like "holiday visa" before the change to "work permit (IEC)").

  • 2
    I don't have a problem with the second one, because the question itself made reasonable sense; it was just the tagging that didn't match. Some inexperienced users come up with the darnedest tags somehow. The first one is more problematic, but the OP's comment "the visa is a working holiday visa" does help clarify the situation enough that chx, who knows something about Canadian immigration, was able to figure out the meaning. Commented Nov 25, 2016 at 6:13
  • 1
    It's hard for me to know how to interpret "Pistarino, Buenos Aires" if not EZE, even if that's not at all the standard way of describing the airport. The only reason it was at all confusing was because of the tag. If there was some possible way it could have been referring to something related to Rome, then I'd grant the question was ambiguous. But since it was unambiguous, cleaning up the tags and clarifying the airport doesn't seem like a radical edit to me. I'll agree the first question you list poses far more confusion. Commented Nov 25, 2016 at 6:26

1 Answer 1


My view on this is yes it's okay to edit, but if there's ambiguity in the question then while editing, it would be best practice to leave a comment explaining why it was edited.

As explained in the Help Center on "Why can people edit my posts? How does editing work?":

When should I edit posts?

Any time you see a post that needs improvement and are inclined to suggest an edit, you are welcome to do so. The original author of a question or answer may always edit their own post, regardless of reputation level.

Edits are expected to be substantial and to leave the post better than you found it. Common reasons for edits include:

To fix grammar and spelling mistakes To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning) To include additional information only found in comments, so all of the information relevant to the post is contained in one place To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages To add related resources or hyperlinks


You must log in to answer this question.

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