Here is the edit in question. It was rejected for the reason
This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.
As I said in the title, it doesn't seem superfluous to me to fix typos and grammar. What's wrong with this edit?
I see that you tried again, and your suggestion was approved this time. But, please, when you see a non-inlined image like
[enter image description here][1]
don’t change it to
change it to
[![image description][1]][1]so a user can click on the image displayed in the Super User page and go directly to the image on i.sstatic.net. If you break this down (by adding spaces):
[ ![ image description ] [ 1 ] ] [ 1 ]you can see that it is the basic link markdown:
[ link text ] [ num ]where the
link text is
![ image description ] [ num ]i.e., an image. This has been the default Markdown when you insert an image through the Super User / Stack Exchange GUI for nearly four years now. Reference: Images should be automatically rescaled and the full size linked or put into a lightbox.
(Getting a little off-topic here: images can be used in lots of places
where text can be used:
e.g., in <kbd> Markdown (
),
superscripts (x) and subscripts (x).)
But do keep on looking at the image and inserting a description of it, as you did in the above edit.
Spelling and grammar edits are always useful and should be encouraged, not rejected for not being more substantive. If someone is willing to take the time to make the content here more readable, we shouldn't throw away their effort just because there is more that could have been done to the post.
I do understand the impulse of the reviewer. Because low-rep users get a 2-point bump for accepted edits, there is an issue with silly minor edits being suggested solely for the easy rep. However, if there is a good-faith effort to improve the readability of the post, as in this case, reviewers should accept or improve the edit.
That said, some of the convoluted reasoning I'm seeing bandied in support of rejecting edits makes me think we need to take a moment to revisit first principles.
Why is there a suggested edits review queue in the first place?
All edits suggested by sub-2,000-rep users are placed in the review queue. What would happen if these edits were not reviewed before being published?
Well, there are a number of possible bad outcomes:
Without a review queue, all these changes would remain as long as no one flagged them or fixed them. This could be very bad for the site's content.
Notice that this list of very bad outcomes does not include a user fixing one or two things in a post with lots of problems. That's because the outcome of this is a marginal good, not harm to the site or its content.
While the primary purpose of the review queue is to prevent harmful edits, there is an additional knock-on effect of the review queue as well -- posts that low-rep users have identified as having problems are guaranteed to be seen by at least one high-rep user. Ideally, after the high-rep user has reviewed the post and the suggested changes, the published final product will be in good shape (or will be closed/deleted if the problems go beyond editing). In other words, once a post is identified as having problems, it will be fixed -- either by the original editor, by the reviewer, or by some combination of the two. Posts that leave the review queue should not need to come back for more.
Now, suppose the reviewer has a different philosophy of reviewing suggested edits than I do -- where edits must be complete OR ELSE. It's pretty clear what the "else" should be: the reviewer should fix the remaining problems with the post.
There are two ways for the reviewer to do this:
In either case, the post is fixed when it leaves the review queue. Please try to keep this in mind when reviewing suggested edits.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to propose edit suggestions to posts on Super User. Your suggestion history shows that many have been accepted, which has been in line with the edits of yours I have reviewed. It's good that you want to learn more about why this one was rejected.
Most of what you changed was reasonable. You left the title alone, moved around the intro sentence around, changed 'pluged' to 'plugged' and added a question mark. You also made a couple of minor phrasing changes which were reasonable as well, though it was not a huge difference. However...
The image which OP provided but could not inline in the post due to insufficient reputation should be present. If you could only make one change to a post, this is the one to make, as it makes the information immediately available in the post without having to open a link. I rejected the proposed edit on the basis that this should be done first and foremost - you have been with us on Super User for some time and as such have the reputation to do so.
This is one of the bullet points on the editing help page:
Edits are expected to be substantial and to leave the post better than you found it. Common reasons for edits include:
- To add related resources or hyperlinks
in addition to the other reasons, fixing spelling and grammar issues - as you did - included.
You could have made some other changes to the post, such as shortening the title or otherwise tidying it up. You might also have changed the tags, and a line break or two may aid readability.
I hope this doesn't put you off proposing edits! You have correctly asked a reasonable question about one of your proposed edits, and this should give you a way to make future edit suggestions even better.
