I don't often go through the review queue. But today I found a reasonably good edit there. Unfortunately, there had been another, better edit by another user with 2,000 rep privileges in the meantime. (They probably edited in parallel and submitted close to one another in time; the edits were both 6 minutes old when I checked time stamps.)

This means that the right thing to do is to reject the suggested edit in favor of the better and already live other edit. However, there was no way for me to say "This was a good edit, but unfortunately we don't need it any more". Every single suggested reason for rejecting an edit implies in one way or another that it was unnecessary when written, as apart from when reviewed. I think this is wrong.

My concrete suggestion is therefore that the reason-for-rejection poll includes something along the lines of "The suggested edit was good, but unfortunately it has since become superfluous."

Remarks: If this is something that should be on the general meta instead, please feel free to move it there. I hang almost exclusively on math.SE, so I don't know whether the reason list is specific to each site or not. Also, other suggestions for what the above quote could say are welcome.

  • $\begingroup$ You can give any explanation you want when rejecting. $\endgroup$ – quid Jan 27 '17 at 15:01
  • $\begingroup$ Furthermore, I think that the rejection system should have the option of not penalizing the user if the edit was allowable. Rejection should only be for edits that are bad. That way, a user's statistics reflects that it was a good edit, but that it was declined in rue of another superior edit. $\endgroup$ – user64742 Jan 28 '17 at 0:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .