What's the reasoning behind the rejection of this edit (#774829)?

Question

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?

Answer 1

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!

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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.