48
$\begingroup$

I'm still getting used to how stack exchange sites work, so I hope this is the right place to post this (and if it's not, please let me know.)

I made a substantial revision to an answer I had read where I found the grammar was making it difficult for me to understand. So I corrected a lot of the grammar within the post.

The review was approved by one user, but then rejected and edited by another user. The other user's edit (an addition of a single out-of-place colon) was what became the accepted edit.

It also looks like Community rejected my edit with the reasoning "This edit did not correct critical issues with the post - view the revision history to see what should have been changed."

According to this, I think my edit should be accepted, as it greatly increases the readability of the answer.

At the very least, both edits should be removed, as the accepted edit detracts from the answer currently, since it does not match the previously established format within the answer. This has been done by @JohnMa - Thank you.

So two questions:

  1. What can be done about this?
  2. What's the best way to go about issues like this in the future? (Is this the best place to post?)
$\endgroup$
13
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Another instance here $\endgroup$
    – user99914
    Jun 29, 2018 at 3:52
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ For the part about Community, I think this message appears automatically when a user chooses "Reject and edit" when reviewing suggested edits. $\endgroup$
    – Arnaud D.
    Jun 29, 2018 at 9:14
  • 32
    $\begingroup$ I'm sorry this kind of thing happens; don't let it discourage you, though. Your edit was definitely an edit that should have been accepted, and as a result, it would have improved the quality of the site. Since this latter bit is ultimately the goal, just keep on keepin' on. $\endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Jun 29, 2018 at 14:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You were editing a post, from four years ago, which earned 28 upvotes. You made some mistakes in your edits, and, as it is the goal of editing, when editing someone else's post, to keep it within the intent of the author. I thought you went to far; I could have merely rejected the edited, and perhaps should have. I could have also wasted my time to cull back your excessive "improvements", while also correcting your mistakes, but the task I took on was the review of the edit you presented. It went overboard. I should have just rejected the edit entirely. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jun 29, 2018 at 16:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The post you were editing had been clearly understood. Even earned a lot of rep. I think you suggested edits were overboard/ you ended up writing the post you would have written if you could have. But. One. Problem. with. that. It wasn't, and still isn't "your post". I've seen too many good posts get virtually unwritten by do-gooders who rewrite halg the answer/question. Your job is merely to suggest edits: reasons for rejection of a suggested edit are many ,, including writing in a manner and with content what was not intended by the author, nor in keeping with the intent of the author. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Jun 29, 2018 at 17:02
  • 33
    $\begingroup$ @amWhy I'm sorry you viewed it that way. My intent was merely to clarify some of the wording and incorrect grammar in the post, in hopes that it would allow future readers to read it more easily. I didn't realize I had made mistakes in the edits, and if I did, it would be extremely helpful if those could be fixed in addition to the edits I made. $\endgroup$
    – Pro Q
    Jun 29, 2018 at 17:13
  • $\begingroup$ @Clayton Thank you; will do. $\endgroup$
    – Pro Q
    Jun 29, 2018 at 17:15
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @ProQ For new questions, at least, I'm wary about fixing grammar issues. If the OP is not fluent at English, I don't want to hide that fact. If they do seem fluent but just made a mistake/typo, then I have no issue fixing the mistake. In this case what you edited was neither new nor a question, so the above concerns largely don't apply, but I don't want you to be overly gung-ho about making the sort of edit you made here. $\endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins left SE
    Jun 29, 2018 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ @DerekElkins thank you for letting me know your concerns. I'll try to keep that in mind. $\endgroup$
    – Pro Q
    Jun 29, 2018 at 18:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DerekElkins: This was an answer, though. $\endgroup$
    – hmakholm left over Monica
    Jun 30, 2018 at 9:55
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @HenningMakholm That would be consistent with me calling it "not a question". $\endgroup$
    – Derek Elkins left SE
    Jun 30, 2018 at 11:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DerekElkins: Sorry, I didn't read your comment thoroughly enough. $\endgroup$
    – hmakholm left over Monica
    Jun 30, 2018 at 11:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ related $\endgroup$
    – Later
    May 23, 2020 at 14:09

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
56
$\begingroup$

Like Clayton (in comments) I don't see any problems with the proposed edit, and I think it should have been accepted.

Usually when reviewing proposed edits it takes two reviewers with the same vote to resolve the review. However, if a reviewer clicks "reject and edit" or "improve edit", they get to decide the matter singlehandedly, independently of any earlier disagreeing reviews.

Thus, by clicking "reject and edit" and then make an unrelated pro forma one-character change, as AmWhy did, one can artificially make one's vote count double.

This is in my view an abuse of the review mechanism, and should not be allowed.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 25
    $\begingroup$ I think that amWhy has a point about weaknesses of the edit but it seems to me that amWhy used the proforma edit simply to make sure that the editor did not get rep. $\endgroup$
    – Phira
    Jul 2, 2018 at 6:36
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ When there are concurrent edit attempts, one is warned if an edit has already been filed and that the current attempt should be more substantial. Such mechanism might be adopted also for “reject and edit”. However, a high rep reviewer should not act like this to begin with. $\endgroup$
    – egreg
    Jul 8, 2018 at 15:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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