0
$\begingroup$

A few days ago, I attempted to edit this post in order to make the formula more readable. The edit was rejected because by two users for the following reasons:

  1. 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.

  2. This edit defaces the post in order to promote a product or service, or is deliberately destructive.

Now, I am not mad or upset at all that my edit was rejected, however, I would like to understand why to improve them in the future.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The second objection came from somebody new to reviewing, who possibly didn't know what they were clicking. My guess is that both rejections were based on the fact that you replaced a power of the fraction $1/2$ with a power of $1/7$. That distorted the original post. I am more worried about the fact that somebody approved your edit. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Feb 9 '17 at 13:57
  • $\begingroup$ This clears up the reason I was looking for. Thank you so much. $\endgroup$ – Harnoor Lal Feb 9 '17 at 14:00
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @JyrkiLahtonen If you're talking about the "defaces" rejection, that rejection was from the author of the post, and drastically changing the "initial instinct" could be seen as defacement. Might be a bit harsh, but of the standard rejection reasons, that would seem to be the closest to the truth ("deviates from the original intent" would be close, too). $\endgroup$ – user642796 Feb 9 '17 at 14:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .