3

https://superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/1185211

My edit got rejected with “This edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner.”

My edit did absolutely not deviate at all from the original intent of the post. It even corrected an outdated link.

I’m outraged how some reviewers do such a crappy job. Reviewer stats show that they reject about 40% of suggested edits?! (Not sure what average is though.)

What can I do to get this edit integrated as it should be instead of ending up in the trash?

10
  • So why did you add a youtube link [one-handed mode]: youtu.be/fEzaThlaD2A?t=46 (How To Enable One-Handed Mode In Samsung Galaxy S23, S23+ and S23 Ultra) which has nothing to do with the question?
    – DavidPostill Mod
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 13:48
  • @DavidPostill My edit was approved now.—Allow me to answer anyway: As the text states, what the OP wanted on Windows 10 reminded me of that particular one-handed mode on Android. The link points to a specific timestamp in that video at which the intention of the OP is visualized on some Android phone.—You still feel like it has nothing to do with the question?
    – Robert Siemer
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 14:01
  • @RobertSiemer - The YouTube video has absolutely nothing to do with Windows or the author's question. Furthermore, outside of just linking to a YouTube video, there is no mechanism to cite and quote particular sections of video content.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 14:21
  • @Ramhound First: I did another edit to greatly improve the wording around that link: superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/1185367 Second: There is a mechanism to point to a specific timestamp in a video. At that selected point (and the following 5 seconds) you can see (one variant of) the effect of what the author is asking for. The video shows for (some) Android what the author wants for Windows 10. Thus, it actually has to do with the author’s question.
    – Robert Siemer
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 14:32
  • @RobertSiemer - I was talking about a mechanism within Stack Exchange. You can of course link to the YouTube video at a specific timestamp, but it's only helpful, if the video is public and accessible. Which is the reason the written word is the best way to reference something. The author's own screenshots makes it clear what they want. I went ahead approved and improved the pending edit. A screenshot of the Android behavior would have been far more accessible in the future. I don't foresee the question receiving an answer, so I won't fight, the legitmancy of the YouTube link.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 16:06
  • @Ramhound Good idea, I just included a photo instead: superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/1185428
    – Robert Siemer
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 20:34
  • @Ramhound ...and it got rejected.
    – Robert Siemer
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 8:49
  • @DavidPostill ...The controversial video is approved now. But I ended up replacing the vid with a picture. → Rejected. Which do you like more: the vid or the picture?
    – Robert Siemer
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 8:51
  • I've approved the edit with the picture.
    – DavidPostill Mod
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 8:59
  • @DavidPostill Thanks.
    – Robert Siemer
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 9:01

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Get the attention of a moderator exactly like that: posting the issue on meta.—Or ask a Super User moderator in chat.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .