I'm referring to this edit: https://superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/774829

I'm almost afraid to ask (because I already asked in regards to other edits), but I'm still trying to learn, so I summon the courage and ask: What's the reasoning behind the two votes to reject the edit?

The "standard"-explanation suggest the following: 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.

In my view my edit makes it (at least) easier to understand: The first sentence "I did not pay attention to this when mounting the drive as writable:" is very broad. It's not clear what the author means by "drive" (in this case it is an image or "virtual drive"), how he mounted it or what he means by "writeable". It's not clear what the following error message means (the screen shot) and where it's coming from as well as how to understand the next paragraph. So you need to get to the third paragraph to understand the first two. By adding the context (e.g. that the error message comes from vmware) it all becomes clear in the very beginning, thus understanding it right away, thus makes it easier to read.

To finish up the assessment of my own post, I don't see how my edit is "completely superfluous" or "harms readability". Also one reviewer accepted my edit.

So assuming I'm not right, what am I missing?

  • Also I'm curious why this was down voted. It's a very specific question and I thing I put enough afford into asking it. I also though long before I suggested the edit so I don't repeat my past mistakes. I was a 100% sure that my edit would go through but apparently it doesn't. For my mistakes from past edits: the question is not poor quality at least in my understanding and it hasn't been down voted either. As far as I can tell there is no other vital information missing. – Albin Jul 21 at 18:13
  • I was the reviewer who voted to accept your edit, and I will post my reasoning as an answer – bertieb Jul 21 at 22:49
  • It's easy for me to say but harder to do; that said: don't be afraid to ask. You'll help yourself (and others) ! – bertieb Jul 21 at 23:16
  • @Ramhound 1. who are you referring to? please specify 2. I already stated in my comment that - for me - this question does not (necessary) need any more improvements (no poor quality, and no where else was vital information missing). Please be more specific: exactly what else must have been improved by me for the edit to have been accepted and why. 3. Also I made a statement why it is helpful to state the VMware context already in the beginning of the question. If you disagree please tell me what's wrong with my explanation or bring up your own argument that contradicts mine. – Albin Jul 22 at 0:12
  • @Ramhound Just to clarify, my question stated: what must be changed for the edit to be approved. So if I understand correctly unless I made all the edits you did you would have rejected my edit? – Albin Jul 22 at 5:43
  • @Ramhound ok, thanks for you examples I will go through them. Meanwhile, another question, you said my edit was superfluous because it is clear where the warning was coming from. I thought I explained in my question why it is not clear. Where exactly are you not agreeing with my reasoning? – Albin Jul 22 at 7:58
  • Here some thoughts on you're (suggested) edits: "the full stop" in the first sentence. Was it really wrong before or more difficult to understand?; "System": the original capitalization (SYSTEM) is exactly the one windows uses; "comma" (before and): pretty sure this is wrong; "the drive": no actually you have the option to change ownership of root and subfolder separately from each other so the the previous version was more accurate; "VMWare": actually the correct capitalization is "VMware"; "comma" (before ran): pretty sure this is wrong; – Albin Jul 22 at 8:06
  • Assuming my assessments are correct I'm pretty sure my edit would have been rejected because of too many mistakes. And you didn't answer my question: "what must have been included"? Please understand, it's a fine line between trying to fixing as many issues as possible but not changing unnecessary things (where the wording of the author would have been ok). And difficult to navigate especially for non native speakers. It would be good at least to have a rough threshold as an orientation. – Albin Jul 22 at 8:08
  • 1
    Commenting here to reinforce what I said in the comment to my answer: there is no simple, defined threshold which makes a proposal cross the line from "reject" to "accept" for all reviewers. – bertieb Jul 22 at 10:04

The edit was rejected because others voted to reject it

Your edit took the text from the image description (alt text) to describe the image. The users in question are active on Meta, and may give their own explanation, so I won't put words in their mouth.

Two votes on the edit itself ("Accept" or "Reject") are enough to trigger acceptance or rejection, which is mechanically why your edit was rejected.

The mechanics are explained in full detail on Meta.SE: How do suggested edits work?

I suspect you are looking for an explanation of the reasoning behind the rejection, however.

Was this an improvement?

In this particular case I looked at your proposed reason for the edit:

readded "where" the system screenshot is, because it's not obvious from the screenshot itself

I then looked at the question, and agreed that it added useful context. It also use the description that the OP originally used, so there was no conflict with their intent.

It is true the the information that it was about VMware is present, and if someone visited it from the vmware tag, it would no doubt be obvious. However, the VMware information was not prominent; and I think having context both early in the question, and close to the matter at hand (the screenshot) is useful. So despite its length, I agreed that it was a useful edit in and of itself.

As the merits of what constitutes improvement (etc) have been discussed elsewhere I won't repeat them here.

One last thing

However, I would add this small tip: there are other things about the post that could be improved, and you should consider yourself encouraged to look at other parts of the post if you find yourself editing to add, remove or change a particular thing- the same standards will apply even after you no longer need edits approved!

  • 1
    @Albin, I agree, and would even take it a step farther. Having a vmware tag could relate to just the presence of vmware in the action. It isn't obvious from the tag or question what application is generating the message. This may be a case where some reviewers were just so familiar with vmware, that the benefit of the edit was lost on them. I would have approved the edit, also. – fixer1234 Jul 22 at 0:34
  • @Albin For example, in my view the title was unclear. Ramhound has made some other suggestions. I wouldn't get too hung up on the exact details of this (or any one in particular) edit; different people approach things differently. It may be frustrating when an edit is rejected, but for one or two here or there won't penalise you. – bertieb Jul 22 at 9:56

Let me start with a little context because there has been a lot of recent discussion about proposed edits being rejected because they didn't fix everything.

There isn't a requirement to fix every last item that can be improved when making an edit. Once you have the rep to edit without review, you're free to make trivial changes that you think are an improvement. But even then, it's still good community etiquette to fix what obvious problems you can if you're going to bump the post. It isn't fair to other posters to reduce their question's time in the sun by repeatedly bumping other posts to the main page for inconsequential edits, or a series of edits that could easily have been caught in one edit.

If the edit is proposed by someone whose rep requires edit review, multiple other users will spend time reviewing the proposed change. It isn't fair to them, or good use of their time, to have to deal with obviously incomplete and minimal edits, especially if what is proposed wasn't something that needed fixing while lots of obvious stuff was ignored.

There is generally an expectation that the editor make a reasonable effort to fix as many problems as possible. Otherwise, it's like saying to the reviewer, "Here's a post I found that needs lots of work. I fixed this minor issue. Now you do the needed edit as an improvement, or now that you're aware of this mess, put it back in circulation in that condition. Just approve my tweak so I can get 2 rep."

It's unusual for any edit to catch every possible improvement that could perfect a post. So the changes proposed get weighed against the problems missed. If the proposed change is a significant and needed improvement, reviewers will tend to approve it even if there is obvious other stuff missed. If the proposed change is a minor improvement of something that doesn't really need fixing, reviewers often won't approve it if lots of other obvious problems weren't touched.

To the proposed edit referenced in this question, personally, I would have approved this one because I thought it added good clarification, regardless of what else could be improved.

The text

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.

is one of prepared, fixed texts, which rewiewers can't modify.

When a reviewer decides to reject an edit, they have to select the reason from the menu, and this is one of (more) options.

Different reviewers may have different opinions about approving / rejecting an edit, so the ultimate result depends on the majority of reviewers.

Now, why 2 reviewers rejected your edit?

I guess - because of the text

80 GB was getting copied from a 16 GB Vmware drive.

in the question, so your

Vmware Warning

addition is superfluous.

  • @Albin, you're welcome. I understand your feelings. – MarianD Jul 21 at 20:53
  • Thanks for you moral support! :) I'm curious, do you think it was a good edit suggestion (regarding my point of view / reasoning) or do you think I shouldn't have made it? (please not, I'm not asking if the edit should have been accepted, just checking if it was a justified suggestion) – Albin Jul 21 at 21:24
  • @Albin, as you can see from the reviewers of your edit suggestion, it was not so clear if it is a good one, or a bad one. IMHO it was by no means harmful, and adding those 2 words to the answer may be useful, at least for some people. – MarianD Jul 21 at 21:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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