0

I have just done 2 suggested edits, and have had them rejected due to:

This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.

Why is that?!

The first question I suggested an edit for, had 51 characters added and 35 removed.

The second question I suggested an edit for, had 19 characters added and 5 removed.

The person who has been rejecting these is Tog - I really wanna know why he has done that - also by looking at his review record, he has approved 107 edit suggestions and rejected 355 edit suggestions.

I'd say it is a bit harsh and unfair for a newcomer to the SuperUser site.

1

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

Let's look at those individually:

  • Your first edit was okay, but you missed capitalizing abbreviations like "hdmi" and "dvi". It wasn't bad, but in general you should try to fix all issues with a post, and make very thorough edits. The capitalization in the title was also mixed – you began with Title Case, and ended with sentence case.

  • Your second edit was good, and I approved it. It should not have been rejected as being too minor, although you could have removed the "Thank you" and "Edit" markers while you were at it. We usually delete those completely.

In general it takes at least two regular users (with 2k reputation) or one moderator to approve an edit. So even if one person decides to reject it, two others may approve your edit and it'll go through.

There's rarely a point in calling out a specific user over doing things. You could have just asked what was wrong with your edits or how to improve them. That being said we'll of course have a look at the review history of said user to see if there's something that can be improved.

3
  • Ah ok, I thought as the question was already marked as answered, I thought removing the word EDIT was not allowed, as it might've been used in the answering of the question. Thank you for that.
    – Kevdog777
    Commented May 16, 2013 at 13:15
  • 3
    Since you can look at the revision history of each post, adding "Edit:" to it seems a little superfluous and, in my opinion, just distracts. I know this is more common practice for forums, where posts are read chronologically, but it doesn't make as much sense on a Q&A site.
    – slhck Mod
    Commented May 16, 2013 at 13:18
  • @slhck - I would agree. Its really distracting when several updates happen.
    – Ramhound
    Commented May 16, 2013 at 17:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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