Timeline for Approving edit proposals - am I too strict?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:18 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 7, 2017 at 10:23 | vote | accept | Máté Juhász | ||
| Jan 20, 2017 at 9:37 | answer | added | Overmind | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 8, 2017 at 13:07 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/super_user/status/818081635660922881 | ||
| Jan 7, 2017 at 16:39 | history | edited | Máté Juhász | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jan 6, 2017 at 18:23 | comment | added | Run5k | I have no problem stepping forward and admitting that I was one of the two reviewers who approved the proposed edit. Of course, I am more than willing to defer to the experience of those who have been on Super User much longer than my short 3-month tenure. For what it's worth, I was focusing my attention on the "cruft" aspect that Ben describes below and didn't stop to assess the macro-level problem of whether or not it was on-topic. Obviously that is my shortcoming, and in the future I will endeavor to scrutinize each proposed edit for topic-related issues much more closely. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 17:39 | answer | added | Ben N | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 17:25 | comment | added | TRiG | I would have rejected it for claiming to fix a spelling error when it does nothing of the sort. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 16:57 | comment | added | music2myear | I've seen a raft of suggested edits lately that have consisted almost entirely of removing familiar phrases. I wonder if some of the Winter Bash motivation is getting some people to propose such minor/unnecessary edits in greater volume than is normal, and that this will die down in a few weeks. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 16:02 | comment | added | fixer1234 | Your logic is right on target. A lot of low-value edits slip through because reviewers haven't had enough coffee. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 15:57 | comment | added | random Mod | Would have rejected it. There are many other lines to fix, not just the first. It's also not even fixing a typo, it's changing the spelling on the editor's preference with disrespect to the original author | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 15:04 | comment | added | Máté Juhász | That's a good idea @Burgi! It could work similarly to the notification of rejected flag. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 14:59 | comment | added | Burgi | With regards to your update, it isn't easy to see when your edits have been rejected. You only get an notification when it is accepted, perhaps this needs to be a ping in the in tray? | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 14:53 | history | edited | Máté Juhász | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 167 characters in body
|
| Jan 6, 2017 at 14:41 | comment | added | Ramhound | I would have rejected it also on the ground that while it addresses a minor problem, it doesn't improve the question or resolve the major problem with the question, allowing it to be opened again. This question could be modified, to be within our scope, by changing one key sentence. On a sort of personal note, The editor that made that edit proposal has been around long enough to know this, so thats another reason i would have rejected the edit. Of course the primary reason falls back to the fact, the actual problem with the question (request for software), wasn't resolved. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 14:38 | comment | added | Burgi | I would have rejected it too | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 14:20 | history | asked | Máté Juhász | CC BY-SA 3.0 |