14
$\begingroup$

This is the first time I'm actually "complaining" about something, but I fail to see some logic in the reasons pointed.

This is my suggested edit to a question. I've done some linking to sources (that appeared to me of be of some quality) and removed the ending salutations (which are not relevant for the question). What boggles me isn't the fact it was closed, rather it is the disjointed reasons why:

  • This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.
  • This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost.

I didn't change any meaning in the post, safe for removing the salutations, which aren't needed. It can be argued that my edit was minor, as all I did was adding some sources, but the help page encourages this kind of behavior. I've did some other similar editing around this site that was approved.

I've since then posted the general source as a comment. What I would want to know is if this edit was really small (as for this community) or if I just had some sort of bad luck.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, looking at your edit suggestion, meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/9652/… $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Dec 29, 2013 at 21:47
  • $\begingroup$ Well, that takes care of one of the points, although if the only edit I would make was to remove the salutation, I wouldn't probably make it (i.e. it bumps a question that may or may not need said bump for a petty reason). $\endgroup$
    – Doktoro Reichard
    Commented Dec 29, 2013 at 21:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DoktoroReichard Obviously, people overlooked the added links despite your comment. I like it that you added the sources because it improves the question a lot, but I also understand how reviewers could overlook it, so you should not be too angry at them. It is also good that you asked a meta question because it might sensibilise more reviewers to the "invisible hyperlink" issue. $\endgroup$
    – Phira
    Commented Dec 31, 2013 at 16:32

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
8
$\begingroup$

Disclaimer: I would have voted to approve this edit. What probably confused the reviewers was that the green highlighted background of the "changed text" obscured the added hyperlink text. The addition of hyperlinked sources was good, but probably not noticed by people making rapid reviews.

Perhaps doing something like saying "(found here)" (with that as a hyperlink), instead of in-line replacement of text with hyperlinks would be approved, because it is clearly noticeable what you added. (Edit 3/2019: Actually, for very good reasons, do not do this; see TRiG's comment below and the associated blog post about avoiding meaningless link text).

As to why you received the reasons you did:
The "too minor" response would probably be by someone who only noticed the removal of salutation and not the hyperlink, or thought that the addition of the hyperlink was only a formatting change (e.g. underlining the title of a book).

The "too major" response is someone who probably didn't appreciate seeing the salutation removed, and thus considered it "changing the intent of the author."

Of course, this is just speculation until one of the two reviewers actually comes and comments or something. :)

tl;dr: That edit could have gone either way--I liked it. The responses you received may have been because your edit was visually unsubstantial--it is hard to see what you changed in the "proposed edit" window.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The salutation part was well explained in Asaf's linked post, it's somewhat specific to the community and being a recent addition I had no easy way to detect. About the inlined hyperlinks, I've became accustomed to them, because they give a more seamless experience. My main experience here in SE is in SuperUser, where it might make more sense to use them. I'm accepting mainly because I agree that the logic behind your supposed reasons is accurate. $\endgroup$
    – Doktoro Reichard
    Commented Dec 31, 2013 at 1:44
  • $\begingroup$ Rejecting an edit as "too major" because it removes the salutation would be pretty amazing. I certainly hope reviewers aren't doing that. Salutations are generally considered noise on the Stack Exchange network and the usual advice is that it's better to omit them; rejecting a useful edit as "too major" because it happens to remove a salutation... well, that represents a misunderstanding of what "too major" is intended to be used for. I realize this question is over a year old now, but for anyone else who runs across this in the future, I wanted to express a different perspective. $\endgroup$
    – D.W.
    Commented Apr 22, 2015 at 4:23
  • $\begingroup$ Please don't encourage people to use terrible link text. $\endgroup$
    – TRiG
    Commented Mar 8, 2019 at 15:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TRiG You have drawn my attention to a new issue that I'd never thought about before. Thanks! I edited my post to retract the recommendation of such link text. $\endgroup$
    – apnorton
    Commented Mar 9, 2019 at 3:46
1
$\begingroup$

I remember being puzzled by your edit, it took a while until I realized the links and could approve it. Sometimes this happens in $\TeX$; in the proposed edit window things break, forcing me to sometimes open another window to see what's going on. However, I must admit I would had had approved it anyway, since I didn't know about the new rules on removing salutations.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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