Timeline for Why are substantial edits rejected when they don't also address all, potential minor, issues?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 15, 2018 at 10:52 | comment | added | Albin | In regards to your answer (not the comment): Yes I agree, the reject/approve system is used subjectively. It does discourage from improving post, but that is exactly what "they" want. BUT: the main reasoning behind it is fear that it might get abused. But so far no one has presented any data to support this decision. The combination of a subjective decision and fear usually does bring out very good results: it might avoid abuse (which might be good) but it definitely does hold back improvements (which is definitely bad). | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 10:42 | comment | added | Flow | I am not aware that such a rule exists anywhere within the stackexchange network. I believe that this is policy is followed by a small but active superuser reviwers group for the false reasons. Eventually, I fear, causing harm to the community by driving away contributors. | |
| Jul 15, 2018 at 7:47 | history | answered | Flow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |