They did collect feedback. They agree with allquixotic's feedback. :-)

@Albin, based on length, virtually the entire question was visible on the main page. The title isn't the question, it's like a headline. A great title can attract readers; otherwise, it just provides orientation. It's a problem if it's inaccurate or misleading, and wastes peoples time or confuses them when they read the question. The original title wasn't a problem, and likely had little impact on readership, but the question is an English mess. Flow's edit changed the title style, and made it more explicit, but that change was largely irrelevant in terms of what would make it a better post.

@Albin & Flow, I've looked at both linked edits. You both keep referring here to those being good edits that were rejected because other things weren't also fixed. That's not an accurate premise. Neither edit made a substantive improvement in the respective post. I would also have rejected them. An argument could be made that the specific sentences/title were maybe slightly better, but those changes were insignificant relative to the problems in both posts, and weren't what needed fixing.

It isn't clear why you think the reviewer stats are a problem. Keep in mind that what is being reviewed are the edits of inexperienced users who get no advance guidance on appropriate editing.

@Albin, site perspective = user perspective if user perspective = the population of users. I was just showing a few examples to illustrate that "improvement" needs to be considered in a broader context than just a chunk of text in the abstract. Every case is different and reviewers need to weigh all of the relevant factors and make their best judgement. Individual judgements will differ, which is why there are multiple reviewers.

re: contradictory guidance--that's part of the education. There are a number of areas where there are conflicting schools of thought on what's right, and little hard guidance. It's good to be aware (and tolerant) of practices that might conflict with our own views about what's best. :-)

Good answer. re: guidance being hard to find, I agree. But here's a gem on review guidance, that by extension, provides guidance on posting and editing. It should be pointed out users as they hit rep thresholds that enable them to edit and review: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/155538/…. Another relevant one: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/74430/….

@Albin, it's not just that your edit didn't fix everything, it's that the edit didn't make it better. What you did "fix" wasn't what needed fixing, and those changes weren't really substantive improvements.

Additional thoughts: 1) if we have an issue with [clock] being ambiguous, we should not keep it as-is and rely on wiki excerpt guidance. 1st bullet: definitely remove redundant [clock] tags. 2nd bullet: replace it with [computer-clock]. 2) [cpu-clock-speed] is too restrictive, excluding other possible questions relating to the cpu clock. Just use [cpu-clock] for all questions pertaining to it.

I agree it's too broad. [timestamp] has a definition that associates it with an event time. Questions about time of day that aren't about a timestamp might be a better match with [date-time]. [computer-clock] might still be misused (like for [cpu-clock]), but I can't think of a better tag. Other than those nits, I like it.

Other than being a spammer, you don't get locked out of anything based on one post. There's either information you aren't including here, or you have misinterpreted something. It can be sorted out on the Meta site.

Reviewers aren't expected to judge the technical accuracy. You can post technical changes in a comment instead of an edit. But if you want to include them in an edit, it wouldn't hurt to include an authoritative reference in the edit comment or a post comment. That still won't guarantee acceptance of a technical change, but it may clarify correction of a technical typo.