Timeline for Why was this review (that just corrects grammar) rejected?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2018 at 13:47 | history | edited | robinCTS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Clarified that minor edits can be either trivial or substantive: Added note about a better bumping solution
|
| Jul 22, 2018 at 13:36 | comment | added | robinCTS | @BenVoigt Interesting. I would have thought that if it was a screenshot captured by the OP themselves, the mere posting of the link would constitute acceptance by the OP to apply the Creative Commons license. (I'm not a lawyer, though, so…) However, I can see how that might be an issue for third-party images. | |
| Jul 22, 2018 at 13:26 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | There's very poor awareness of this among users in general, but bullet #3 -- inlining images (such as screenshots) -- requires permission of the image owner, because it makes a copy on the SE imgur and applies the Creative Commons license. Editors do not have the authority to change the license on linked images. | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 7:38 | comment | added | fixer1234 | re: contradictory guidance--that's part of the education. There are a number of areas where there are conflicting schools of thought on what's right, and little hard guidance. It's good to be aware (and tolerant) of practices that might conflict with our own views about what's best. :-) | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 7:38 | comment | added | robinCTS | … I can't recall having seen your second link before. I just read through it now, though, and none of the answers address the question any better than what I've done here. In fact, some contradict others, one contains outdate info (the auto conversion to Community Wiki), and Shog9's answer is an nice tangential ramble but doesn't address the question directly (although the three posts linked to in the first sentence do). Reading through all this did remind me of the solution I had come up with to the bumping issue - allowing reviewers/2000+ reppers to optionally suppress the bumping. | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 7:38 | comment | added | robinCTS | @fixer1234 Thanks. I was aware of that first link but decided not to use it for this case as 1) It is written from the point of view of a reviewer; 2) It doesn't explain in detail the basic things I mention here; 3) It contains approval recommendations that seem to be contrary to actual reviewer practice (at least here on Super User). -§- Good idea about pointing it out to users as they cross rep thresholds, though. … | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 6:42 | comment | added | fixer1234 | Good answer. re: guidance being hard to find, I agree. But here's a gem on review guidance, that by extension, provides guidance on posting and editing. It should be pointed out users as they hit rep thresholds that enable them to edit and review: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/…. Another relevant one: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/74430/…. | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 5:48 | history | edited | robinCTS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added formatting missed when comments were copy-pasted; Minor readabiliy tweaks
|
| Jul 14, 2018 at 5:05 | history | answered | robinCTS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |