14
$\begingroup$

I proposed an edit, two times on Find $\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\arctan (x^{3/2})}{\sqrt x}$. this question but both the times, It got rejected.

For the first time, I ignored it. But it happened a second time too, on the same post. Editing a post gives $2$ points to the editor, which at least motivates to edit more posts, but rejecting valid edit suggestions is not good.

I don't see any reason for rejection of the edit suggested. Can anyone explain? Isn't it an abuse to reviewing queues (Or a kind of rude behaviour with the edit suggester)?

Here's the screenshot of the same: enter image description here


As @hardmath pointed out that "Sometimes reviewing is done hastily" but I think only "Reject" and "Approve" might be done "hastily". It's not possible that someone "Reject and edit" an edit suggestion "hastily" $2$ times on the same post, unintentionally.

$\endgroup$
12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't know exactly what happened, but I do sometimes do that, the thing is that if you approve an edit then you need for someone else to approve it, instead if you "improve the edit" you can just do it (this applies to users with high rep,idk how high tho). $\endgroup$
    – Asinomás
    May 16 at 18:53
  • $\begingroup$ The thing is I can't see your username come up when I try and do that. So I don't think I can see what your suggested edit was. $\endgroup$
    – Asinomás
    May 16 at 18:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sometimes reviewing is done hastily (and so as well, editing). The name "l'hopital" should be l'Hôpital, but I would only note it for future reference. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    May 16 at 19:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Here is a link to the relevant (2nd) review queue actions. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    May 16 at 19:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The second review action does follow the letter of that post, but most of the added height from the \limits_ is assumed by the fraction in the title. All of the added height could be removed by \raise{3pt}{\lim\limits_{x\to\infty}}. This would retain the spirit of the suggested edit while maintaining the spirit of the cited post. $\endgroup$
    – robjohn Mod
    May 16 at 20:02
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "Reject and edit" was discussed on this meta in the past, for example, Rejected into a tiny edit and Abuse "Reject-and-Edit" to reject singlehandedly. $\endgroup$ May 17 at 3:54
  • $\begingroup$ It seems that there is some discussion about this issue in the comments, but the current wording does not forbid \limits in the title: Guidelines for good use of MathJax in question titles. (Using \limis takes less vertical space than \displaystyle.) $\endgroup$ May 17 at 4:18
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak see the comments on the answer which you linked. $\lim_{x \to a} f(x)$ is preferred over $\lim\limits_{x\to a} f(x)$. $\endgroup$
    – Yooo
    May 17 at 6:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Anonymous Yes, I read the comments - I have mentioned them above. Some users expressed their preference to avoid \limits. (I would say that if this is supposed to be a general rule, a separate discussion about this issue could be warranted.) $\endgroup$ May 17 at 7:21
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @postmortes 1) Edit#5 IMO is more important than the original edit suggestion or the reject-and-edit (edit#4) that was forced in, since it removes an unsightly Mathjax error. 2) this 5th edit notwithstanding, the original edit suggestion of OP is much closer than all other edits to the current state of the question (though its not perfect either). Both reject-n-edits of a certain user introduced errors that I would reject on the basis of, if they were suggested edits. $\endgroup$ May 17 at 8:18
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ (contd) so I would say that the picture in OP's question of their first suggested edit demonstrates that they originally suggested a significant edit (since it is about as good or better than the other edits) $\endgroup$ May 17 at 8:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Happened across another related link - Many of my recent edits have been rejected. Any particular reason or just a coincidence? $\endgroup$ Jun 8 at 5:32

1 Answer 1

11
$\begingroup$

Some thoughts in point form

  1. Personally you are not that far from 2000 rep, at which point you will be able to unilaterally make edits. So the most practical advice IMO would be to get to 2000 rep, and then this will only be other peoples' problem...(also a point in Arctic Char's answer linked below)
  2. I think your rejected suggested edits would have improved the question, enough for me to "approve".
  3. I personally have edited many tall titles (once I was past 2000 rep). But in this case, due to the fraction, I would have abstained.
  4. I am personally OK with edits made for 2 rep, so long as the edit is good and does not unnecessarily bump old posts. But there are people who take issue with this, and this could be why your edits were rejected-and-edited (keep in mind I cannot explain the current situation as I am not the R&Editor in question). I am also OK with people voting to reject for this reason.
  5. When I do use reject-and-edit, I usually think to myself something like "if you wanna do something right, you gotta do it yourself". But in this case (and Rejected into a tiny edit) the R&Editor introduced typos. Not only does this bump the question, it actively makes the question worse. So I believe reject-and-edit was not used correctly.
  6. The suggested edit queue is usually (currently) very small. So I would say that if one is in the Suggested Edits queue, and cannot find the time, energy, or focus to act with certainty, they should skip, or only reject, so that someone else has to agree that there is an error (lowering the chance of mistakes).
  7. In Abuse "Reject-and-Edit" to reject singlehandedly (this time about different users) is some practical advice that you can implement now:

Thus, if there is a problem with the reviewing of a user, do not hesitate to bring it to the moderators attention. Depending on the nature of the problem, we might get involved. (from Quid's answer)

Submit your edit again in another time of the day, hopefully different users will review your edit. (from Arctic Char's answer)

On contacting moderators, see What are appropriate ways to contact moderators in different occasions? Flag, Comment, Chat, Email?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ links in pts 5,7 (of revision 1) from comments above $\endgroup$ May 18 at 17:36
  • $\begingroup$ +1 for this: "I have edited many tall titles ... But in this case, due to the fraction, I would have abstained." As discussed in "Guidelines for good use of MathJax in question titles", avoiding displaystyle is mainly to prevent the title from taking too much vertical space. Comparing "$\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\arctan (x^{3/2})}{\sqrt x}$" and "$\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\arctan (x^{3/2})}{\sqrt x}$", the removal of \limits does not make much difference regarding the height. (And it makes the title a bit longer.) $\endgroup$ May 28 at 6:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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