Timeline for Why was this review (that just corrects grammar) rejected?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 20, 2018 at 8:26 | comment | added | Albin | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jul 20, 2018 at 5:12 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/super_user/status/1020174477047582721 | ||
| Jul 19, 2018 at 23:13 | comment | added | Albin | @Ramhound no, erroneous edits should be rejected, i agree. what do you mean by "Bring up error by reviewers but offer no concrete examples"? | |
| Jul 19, 2018 at 22:26 | comment | added | Albin | @Ramhound I can't find it, but assuming you are right I don't follow you. How do you get from a bad edit to the conclusion that more restriction is needed? But we anyway, we should move this discussion back to the chat. | |
| Jul 19, 2018 at 22:05 | comment | added | Albin | @Ramhound well there is no way to verify you're statement, so I wouldn't really say that it counts as a valid argument. And it could also be that you are wrong. By now I experienced it two times that the reviewers decision were definitely wrong (one concerning a edit, one concerning to close a question). | |
| Jul 19, 2018 at 16:53 | comment | added | Albin | @Ramhound which example are you referring to? | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 7:45 | comment | added | Flow | It appears that superuser is way to restrictive when it comes to accepting suggested edits. | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 17:03 | comment | added | Albin | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 17:02 | comment | added | Albin | @Experienced Users: what should I do? Use comments? Open a chat? Use s.th. else? | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 5:34 | comment | added | robinCTS | @Ramhound cc ^ | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 5:11 | comment | added | robinCTS | @Albin As for opening a chat room, I'm not sure what's better. Meta works differently to the main site. It is more about discussion, rather than a Question plus Answers with the comments just used for clarification. I will defer to the more experienced meta users. | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 5:05 | answer | added | robinCTS | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 4:39 | comment | added | robinCTS | @Albin You have to use the work-around. Basically the OP always gets notified, plus the one user explicitly "pinged". (It is slightly more complicated than this, though. See How do comment @replies work? for further details.) All previous commenters do not get spammed with notifications ;-) | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 4:31 | comment | added | Albin | @robinCTS if i dont use the "@user", will users who left a comment in the past will be notified about my new comment? Or do I have to use your suggested "work around"? | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 4:29 | comment | added | Albin | I gave the whole issue some thought, and I have a few point I would like do discuss in regards to my edit. Even on a subjective basis, I have some doubts that the reasons you guys presented for rejecting my review don't contradict themselves. I'm not sure if the comments are a good place for such a discussion. Would it be better to open a chat room? | |
| Jul 13, 2018 at 10:04 | comment | added | robinCTS |
As for the issue of pinging multiple users (yes, this has also been brought up before ;-) ) If you think it's really necessary, just add more comments that simply say @OtherUsser cc ^. You can always deleted those comments after the user has replied or after a certain time. Adding and deleting such comments won't affect the flow of the comment thread.
|
|
| Jul 13, 2018 at 9:58 | comment | added | robinCTS | … I haven't checked, but I suspect there are a lot of posts around this issue. I don't think posting another one will either result in a change or even a productive discussion as the current situation is probably the best compromise for a complicated issue. | |
| Jul 13, 2018 at 8:54 | comment | added | Albin | @robinCTS (I hope the others will read my comment as well it seems I can only adress one person at a time) thanks everyone those comments give me a better insight. I see a pattern of a general consents emerging between users with high reputation levels emerging here. I think one of the problems is, that the goals/rules of reviewing are not defined very well in the help center. The term "make it significantly better" is very subjective which makes it a very bad guideline for newcomers. | |
| Jul 13, 2018 at 8:52 | comment | added | Albin | on a side note: not allowing for a small quality improvement on a proposal doesn't sound logical in the big picture. The ultimate goal is to improve quality of the questions and answers. Beside the organizational issue (that it gets bumped to the top of the list, which is a fault by design an can be changed) I don't see a reason to limit proposals to large improvements. But I could name several good reasons to allow small improvements. - should I post this as a new question? | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 23:07 | history | edited | Run5k | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Misspelled "grammar"
|
| Jul 11, 2018 at 23:05 | comment | added | Run5k |
I was one of the people who rejected your proposed edit, and Ramhound already provided a very good explanation regarding the rationale behind my decision. But please, don't get me wrong: we truly appreciate your time and effort! Although your Suggested Edit improved the original answer, there were simply too many grammatical mistakes still remaining within the answer to justify approval.
|
|
| Jul 11, 2018 at 21:26 | answer | added | Ramhound | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 18:07 | history | asked | Albin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |