Timeline for Why did my edit that fixed several spelling errors get rejected as superfluous?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2019 at 22:11 | comment | added | Ramhound | If other reviewers always fix the problems missed by other editors, if it’s the same editor (over and over again) that has their edits rejected they will eventually be unable to make edit suggestions. You can be suspended from making edit proposals just like you can be suspended from making review queues decisions if you fail to many audits. We want discussions like this about an edit proposal. We don’t want to wait until their edits are rejected and improved all the time. We want the proper edits in the first place (IMO) | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 14:13 | comment | added | Excellll | @fixer1234 Your second point is fine. I understand the benefit of teaching would-be editors to be thorough. In cases where the post has genuine readability problems, trivial edits can be rejected, but by all means, the reviewer should reject AND edit. | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 1:34 | comment | added | fixer1234 | The editor may also be unaware of your improvement if you accept and improve. We want to encourage users to participate, but sometimes rejecting near-useless edits has a long-term payoff. | |
| Apr 9, 2019 at 1:34 | comment | added | fixer1234 | 1. So the bottom line: if the post doesn't warrant closing/deletion, then accept the edit, accept and improve it, or reject and improve it. But if it still needs work and you (reviewer) aren't willing to do it, skip it and let someone else do it rather than rejecting? +1 for that. 2. One other purpose of the review queue is to provide feedback to new users so they can learn the expectations and develop good habits. If their good faith effort fails miserably at improving the post in a meaningful way, just accepting the edit isn't really helping anyone. (cont'd) | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 22:00 | comment | added | I say Reinstate Monica | Your expanded version of this answer is excellent as it explains very well the harm done by rejecting edits that improve the post, even if that improvement isn't "perfect." Well said. | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 17:39 | history | edited | Excellll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added tie-in to why we review edits in the first place and reminder to reviewers fix obvious problems instead of kicking them back into the wilderness
|
| Apr 5, 2019 at 20:32 | comment | added | Excellll | @TwistyImpersonator That's why there's an Improve Edit option in the review queue (or Reject and Edit if you're a hardcore finger-wagger). Once it enters the review queue, at least one more person is going to view the post for editorial reasons. I really don't care who makes the sum total of the edits, just that the needed edits are made. For an item that needs edits to make its way out of the review queue unfixed is a problem, but that problem does not start with the original editor. It comes from the reviewers mishandling the review. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 16:51 | comment | added | I say Reinstate Monica | I'm with you that helpful edits should be approved without requiring that they fix "everything". However, not in-lining an image is unhelpful. Someone has to do that and that someone should be the first editor that sees the task. Rejecting this edit provided valuable training feedback to the OP on this point. | |
| Apr 4, 2019 at 13:28 | comment | added | Excellll | To answer your question, yes, it is wrong to only accept "the best of the best". The purpose of the edit review queue isn't to establish some strange editing meritocracy. It's there to prevent destructive edits. | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 19:19 | comment | added | Ramhound | If every edit that only addresses some of the issues in a contribution is improved, we will only get incomplete edit proposals, better to only improve substantial edit proposals to contributions. Is it wrong to only accept the best of the best, and provide a well thought out explanation, for those few edit proposals that are the borderline case? | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 15:38 | history | answered | Excellll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |