Timeline for Question about structuring posts
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2018 at 19:16 | comment | added | fixer1234 | As you note, such edits are allowable as long as they don't change the meaning or intent; but they should result in a substantial improvement that justifies the amount of change. The edit I made to that question was more than just formatting (if it seems like just formatting, then it was successful). | |
| Sep 30, 2018 at 19:16 | comment | added | fixer1234 | After rereading the question, I realized that the issue actually was that the question included a lot of distracting, superfluous wording, and it could be clarified by a substantial rewrite, which didn't require the OP to do it. So there was a change in perception and my comments, which referred to minor tweaks vs. substantial rewrite, do seem a bit contradictory. In general, we prefer not to make major changes to posts except to the extent that they are needed to solve problems that make a post unclear, off-topic, or some other serious issue. (cont'd) | |
| Sep 30, 2018 at 19:15 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @jrh, good observation about my comments; I should have used more precise wording. Actually, any change to the question is an edit so yeah, poor choice of words. To clarify, my initial comments were in reference to minor edits that simply tweaked what was written. The kinds of minor edits proposed weren't really an improvement. My initial reading of the question was that it was unfocused, and it seemed like adding specific examples of what the OP was trying to accomplish would focus it (which only the OP could do). (cont'd) | |
| Sep 30, 2018 at 16:37 | comment | added | jrh | Though looking at the broad scope of things, SU has nowhere near as many badly formatted / messy posts / dead link posts as SO does, hypothetically if the community did want to restrict SU's editing to 2k+ only users, it's possible that 2k+ users could handle this site, I guess? | |
| Sep 30, 2018 at 16:13 | comment | added | jrh | Also I have to point out that I don't see any change in intent with the final version of the post, all I see is formatting changes, which are allowed on SO and (as far as I know, all SE sites). Though your recommendation is valid, robo-reviewers sometimes hate to see a lot of red and green and reject on sight. I'd consider that more of a problem with the reviewing system than a deliberate move by SE, though. Not sure if SU has different rules, let me know if this is the case. | |
| Sep 30, 2018 at 16:05 | comment | added | jrh | @fixer1234 Sorry, I have to point this out, you went from "The question isn't suffering from lack of an edit." and "you should weigh the value of the improvement against bumping the post to the main page." to "Ordinarily, it isn't recommended to make such massive edits.", as somebody who suggests a lot of edits on SO, I hope you don't flake out like this when reviewing, this kind of adds to my suspicion that there's really no space between "too minor" and "deviates too far from intent" and makes me not want to even bother editing. | |
| Sep 26, 2018 at 19:02 | comment | added | Scott - Слава Україні | @Albin: Since you asked: you failed to capitalize “Windows”. | |
| Sep 26, 2018 at 18:52 | comment | added | fixer1234 | I retained a brief amount of info on the other effects because people might try to address those, thinking they could also be a problem. But, yeah, the real improvement on this one comes from focusing the question on the problem rather than tidying up superfluous stuff. The general recommendation is to change the authors words as little as needed to make the post clear. You have to weigh perfect English vs. the author's ownership in the post. Not every imperfection needs to be fixed if it doesn't really hurt the post. It's a judgment call; different reviewers could react differently. | |
| Sep 26, 2018 at 10:48 | comment | added | Albin | PS. My original suggestion was something like this: "A drive letter changed on my Windows 7 Ultimate system. Changing it back unfortunately isn't an option. I have a lot of symlinks pointing to the old drive, and correcting them manually on by one it to tedious. Is it possible to automate this?" Two paragraphs, 2nd one start with "I have". I think it's easy to read and it has all the necessary info - nothing else is needed. But I was pretty sure it would be rejected. So I "just" changed things which in my view were most significant: no paragraph structure and long and hard to read sentences. | |
| Sep 26, 2018 at 10:14 | comment | added | Albin | @fixer1234 Yes, I agree that there is a lot of unneeded information and I didn't correct it for the exact reason you gave in your comment. What do you think, how should I go about this in the future? | |
| Sep 26, 2018 at 5:56 | history | edited | DavidPostillMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Sep 26, 2018 at 5:22 | history | edited | Blackwood | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Clarify wording and format quote.
|
| Sep 26, 2018 at 0:37 | answer | added | Ramhound | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 26, 2018 at 0:30 | comment | added | fixer1234 | I took another look at the question. It contained a lot of wording about stuff that wasn't critical to the actual question. That was largely what was distracting to wade through. I edited it to minimize the unnecessary part and focus on the actual question. Ordinarily, it isn't recommended to make such massive edits. Reviewers might even push back if this had been proposed by a <2K editor. In this case, I think more people will read it and immediately grasp the actual question. | |
| Sep 26, 2018 at 0:08 | comment | added | fixer1234 | The title needs a capitalization, and maybe the big paragraph would benefit from being split. "Shortcut find and replace" isn't clear (is that the name of a utility? an action?), but it doesn't affect the meaning of the question. The question isn't suffering from lack of an edit. But readers do need to work a little to understand the question because it's entirely an abstract description. The long paragraph and unclear phrase make it more work to read, but fixing those doesn't solve the underlying problem. (cont'd) | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 21:23 | comment | added | Albin | @fixer1234 ok, thx. I think I understand you're argument. First a follow-up question do you think that I missed significant improvements in my edit? | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 19:15 | comment | added | fixer1234 | Changing the comma to a period is a matter of opinion as to whether that's an improvement. I would have left the last paragraph separate because it's a different subject, so that reparagraphing wasn't an improvement. That leaves just splitting the 1st paragraph. Yeah, that probably makes that paragraph a little more readable, but it's a trivial change if that's the only improvement. The net of all the changes: meh, not sure it was really a net improvement. I probably would have rejected it also. If it had fixed anything substantive, I might have improved the edit. | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 19:15 | comment | added | fixer1234 | Once you have the rep to edit without review, you are free to fix even the most trivial things that you consider an improvement, although even then, you should weigh the value of the improvement against bumping the post to the main page. Below, 2K rep, edits create a review task for 2 to 3 other users. Reviewers look for edits that substantively improve a post. Style changes are often matters of opinion as to whether they're necessary or an actual improvement. Quoting "shortcut find and replace" didn't make that any clearer. (cont'd) | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 16:51 | comment | added | Albin | @Burgi ok, just want to make sure, I didn't overlook anything before I resubmit. I haven't been participating that long. I rephrased my post, hopefully it's better to understand now. | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 16:50 | history | edited | Albin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 190 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2018 at 16:20 | comment | added | Burgi | BTW: there is nothing stopping you from re-submitting your changes. | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 16:18 | comment | added | Burgi | You have quite a few double negatives in your question, could you clarify what you mean? Also for what it is worth I would have approved your amends. | |
| Sep 25, 2018 at 16:04 | history | asked | Albin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |