As a follow-on to the following question, I have a concern.

How much negative result is there to having some aggressive edit refusers?

The pre-canned response did not indicate that it was a pre-canned response.

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.

Based on the reject reason, I kind of felt personally insulted. I read the pre-canned response, and assumed that it was something that the user had typed as a reason to snub my edit. While some part of it may have been accurate, it WAS a superfluous edit. My attempted edit was to try to salvage a "software recommendation" question, which would have rightfully been closed and destroyed, into an on-topic question. I was snubbed. Let's set aside that two of three reviewers siding with my edit. (kudos for that) That one refusal looked like a personal (based on content) refusal, and it did not indicate that the reason was pre-canned.

I've been told in the past that I should try to salvage software recommendation questions into problem/solution questions. Was I misinformed? Or have some other people missed the memo?

If a person had actually typed that kind of response to my edit, I would be 10x times more reluctant to make any edits ever again.
This is NOT some impression that should be being pushed on willing editors to questions.

If the reason had indicated that it was a pre-canned bit of text, I wouldn't have felt some personal rejection. I would have looked at it and if the edit rejection had succeeded, I would have looked at it and said, "Meh. The user is a moron that asked for a software recommendation. I was misguided to try to salvage it. I'll know better in the future."

This is NOT the lesson that question editors should be learning.

Should obviously pre-canned rejection texts at least clearly indicate they are as such so that editors don't give up because they feel they're being actively snubbed?

Honesty being one of my hallmarks, I'd have to say that if some potential editors see some of the precanned retorts there's a probability that if they think it is personal, they'll say, "Fine. They don't want my help. Screw 'em."

Just my perspective, I could be mistaken.

  • Wouldn't it sting the same knowing that they chose that particular canned message instead of something else?
    – random Mod
    Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 17:58
  • 2
  • 1
    @random No. Precanned responses cover a wide swath of reasons to reject an edit. Because I felt that the retort was user-typed, I felt that I missed on each and every reason.
    – killermist
    Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 18:01
  • @Mokubai Really good point. The reject reason as-is seems personally insulting, since there is no indication that it is pre-canned. A pre-canned reject reason gives me some reason to look at my edit multiple ways and see what I did wrong. Such a categoric reason that seems to be user-typed makes me look at it and wonder, "Should I bother? Maybe not."
    – killermist
    Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 18:05
  • @random I personally feel less bad (and the user probably does too) if I -1 a question instead of only having the ability to add a comment that says "Your question sucks. You're unsalvageable. Go away." A -1 is a -1 is a -1. Meh, you deal with it. "Your question sucks" is considerably more personal. It may be true, but it retards further activity.
    – killermist
    Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 18:08
  • 1
    Previously the equivalent reject reason was simply "This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post." which at least gave some guidance. The current and old reject reasons can be seen on this question on Meta.se: What guidance should be given when edits are rejected?. Basically it boils down to SE believing that people should be using a custom comment to say "I don't believe this edit should have happened because of X"
    – Mokubai Mod
    Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 18:12
  • @Mokubai Essentially laziness made policy. That is bad policy.
    – killermist
    Commented Jan 23, 2015 at 18:14


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .