Timeline for Why did my edit that fixed several spelling errors get rejected as superfluous?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2020 at 13:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 6, 2019 at 22:01 | comment | added | Kaz | Indeed, I do not believe the reasoning. It looks indistinguishable of the typical post hoc rationalization which tries to reframe a mistake as having been deliberate. This is a common human behavioral pattern. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 12:08 | comment | added | bertieb | This is getting quite extended so I will try to edit my answer and summarise my comment replies when I get a chance to make my thinking clearer. But briefly: I believe my reason was accurate- the edits suggested were not bad, but without including the image they were superfluous. I agree, the wording on the edit rejection is awkward; none of the options are strictly true and unfortunately custom reject (which I do sometimes use) also has awkward phrasing as it says "causes harm" and has limited space available to explain why. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 1:25 | comment | added | Robotnik | Even if you rejected with the best intentions, it's hard for it to be a learning experience when the reject reason you gave isn't accurate. You state that OPs edits were reasonable, but you led with "This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read [or] more accurate.." In comments you say "judicious rejections with appropriate explanations" helped you to be a better editor - then you should be more careful selecting a rejection reason, or write a custom one to impart the knowledge you are trying to convey. (I would've hit 'Improve' and just fixed it tbh). | |
| Apr 4, 2019 at 12:10 | comment | added | jrh | @bertieb from my experience there's at least 5 types of reviewers | |
| Apr 4, 2019 at 12:07 | comment | added | jrh | @bornfromanegg while I appreciate the reviewer taking their time to respond and their attentiveness in general, I have to concur. I'd also like to add, there's no reject reason for "incomplete edit", and from what I've seen, that's by design; Stack Exchange as a system has done everything it can think of to support minor edits (though admittedly the implementation has some issues); the "complete edit" as an accept condition is something the community made. | |
| Apr 4, 2019 at 9:24 | comment | added | bornfromanegg | The reason given in this answer - that the change was not substantial enough - is not the same as the reason given at the time of rejection. "Completely superfluous" is not the same as "not substantial enough". Arguably, the edit makes the post easier to read and more accessible. Changes are not superfluous and actively improve readability. The reason given for rejecting it is therefore wrong. | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 9:04 | history | edited | bertieb | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
change phrasing slightly
|
| Apr 3, 2019 at 8:40 | comment | added | bertieb | @Kaz I appreciate the views of the community but I stand by my review as I have explained in my answer. To suggest it was a 'random accident' or 'random screwup' implies that either you don't believe what I've written or haven't read my reasoning. Even if you have already, I would encourage you to read again: when folks do things differently it's a good opportunity to see why they might do so. Once you've read it, you are free to disagree, of course. | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 7:16 | comment | added | Kaz | It's okay to admit you screwed up. The edit was rejected by the votes of just reviewers; it's basically a random accident. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 23:50 | comment | added | bertieb | To put it another way, I take the view that the review proposed edits queue can serve a dual purpose: to make edits better, and to make editors better :) | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 23:48 | comment | added | bertieb | Some reasonable points being made. Those who review edit suggestions fall somewhere between two extremes: even the most trivial improvement should be approved since it improves the post; and everything that can possibly be improved must be improved. Each has its justifications. When I first started submitting edit suggestions I fell quite close to the former; but some judicious rejections with appropriate explanations from those more experienced helped me propose better edits. I hope that I can help others too- that's the main reason I participate in Q&A! | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 19:45 | comment | added | Monty Harder | The idea that correcting spelling, punctuation, and/or grammatical errors is "not substantial enough" is absurd. Letting those errors stand degrades quality. Fixing them is always worth it. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 13:27 | comment | added | Nat | -1, because I disagree with the suggested edit getting rejected; it looks constructive to me. | |
| Apr 2, 2019 at 11:03 | comment | added | bertieb | @jrh That would also be a reasonable way of going about it too, yes :) | |
| Apr 1, 2019 at 19:50 | comment | added | jrh | "An 'improved edit' does not generate a rejection for the proposing user." What about "reject and edit"? Also this is kinda nitpicking here but IMO this is "accept and edit" territory, I found the previous version of the question almost incomprehensible. | |
| Apr 1, 2019 at 10:23 | comment | added | bertieb | @Vylix that is an acceptable approach too, of course. However, my understanding is that an 'improved edit' does not generate a rejection for the proposing user; as such, there is no learning opportunity like the one here, barring the small-but-percentage who review their own accepted edit suggestions. Neither approach is perfect - and the discussion around both has been had elsewhere - but I would support those who adopted either :) | |
| Apr 1, 2019 at 8:08 | comment | added | Vylix | isn't it the correct approach to accept and improve the edit suggestion, instead of rejecting the whole edit suggestion? | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 22:28 | vote | accept | timotree | ||
| Apr 9, 2019 at 20:41 | |||||
| Mar 31, 2019 at 22:23 | history | answered | bertieb | CC BY-SA 4.0 |