8
$\begingroup$

The following edit should not have been approved. It gives 2 points of reputation to some random dude adding absolutely nothing to an already accepted answer.

This is a request: please do not just blindly click on "Accept Suggested Edit" because it gets you one step closer to a meaningless badge.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Related: Edits that Substantially Extend Answers $\endgroup$
    – user53153
    Dec 25, 2012 at 22:33
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ we need to fill in the description wiki for the tag "rant" $\endgroup$
    – Will Jagy
    Dec 25, 2012 at 23:01
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @WillJagy, are you suggesting that I write one or are you volunteering? $\endgroup$
    – Rudy the Reindeer
    Dec 26, 2012 at 18:50
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The tags "rant" and "complaint" are helpful and should be used more often on meta. (I just added both to my 'ignored' list). $\endgroup$
    – user53153
    Dec 26, 2012 at 21:33
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @PavelM, go ahead an add them to (existing) threads that fit the tags. $\endgroup$
    – Rudy the Reindeer
    Dec 26, 2012 at 21:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Unfortunately that would bump them to the front page for everyone else. I'd rather let things rot in peace unless they are bumped for other reasons. (Also, I would not actually put "rant" on someone else's post, but "complaint" sounds reasonable.) $\endgroup$
    – user53153
    Dec 26, 2012 at 22:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Matt, I tried, but below 20K I can only suggest the description wiki. I know because I used a new one "complex-multiplication" recently and Willie Wong asked me to provide a description. It turned out that was not permanent, and he fiddled it into final shape the next day. $\endgroup$
    – Will Jagy
    Dec 27, 2012 at 21:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am sorry, as my comment is rather after the fact. The two rep points is not a significant incentive to me. I see editing as a not-so-fun civic duty i.e. to try to help out, now and then. In the example given here, I think your objection is valid and justifiable. As for this math.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/5488 where there are numerous errors, and where I spent 15 minutes of time, well, it made me hesitant to make future edit suggestions. The question was subsequently closed, which was a good decision. It had the look and feel of EL&U SE, not Math SE. $\endgroup$
    – Ellie Kesselman
    Jan 4, 2013 at 1:41

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6
$\begingroup$

Agreed! Especially, because the question was tagged homework such that it is good practice not to spell everything out in all the details. However also otherwise answers of people should not be substantially changed. If somebody thinks that there is a relevant bit of information missing he or she is free to provide an answer him/herself.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Agree. I wound up skipping the review instead of rejecting it, though, because the user did not yet have enough reputation to comment. I think I will reject next time I see this situation. $\endgroup$
    – user14972
    Dec 25, 2012 at 23:03
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Actually I really dislike it when I provide a partial answer, so that the asker (and anyone else looking at the question for help later) will have something to figure out for themselves, and then someone else provides a complete answer later, sometimes even after the asker has accepted my answer. $\endgroup$
    – Tara B
    Dec 26, 2012 at 23:54
6
$\begingroup$

The following assumptions are questionable:

  1. The edit adds "absolutely nothing."

  2. The edit was "blindly" approved.

  3. The edit was approved "because it gets [somebody] one step closer to some meaningless badge."

Reasonable people can disagree. The 2 points of reputation are not a serious problem, and the rollback seems to have solved the problem of the unwanted edit.

I am generally in favor of not substantially changing the content of non-community-wiki answers in such ways, as came up in the question Pavel M links to in a comment.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ While the message of my post -- "this edit should not have been approved" -- is serious, the way I phrased the post is not: I expected it to be closed soon after as "not a real question" (even though the complaint is quite real). As for 1.: It does add something: the missing final step that I had deliberately left out. Hence it breaks my answer. As for 2.: I agree that this is a frivolous assumption. As for 3.: Probably, yes. $\endgroup$
    – Rudy the Reindeer
    Dec 26, 2012 at 7:27
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Matt: If you are deliberately giving an incomplete solution I would recommend prefacing your answer with Hint: or Idea: or something similar. I saw your answer before it was... expanded, and thought about writing something about Baire Category in a comment, but somehow decided against it. $\endgroup$
    – user642796
    Dec 26, 2012 at 11:58
  • $\begingroup$ @ArthurFischer I decided that I'll post complete answers only from now on. But you are right, I could have started the post with "Idea:...". $\endgroup$
    – Rudy the Reindeer
    Dec 26, 2012 at 12:11
  • $\begingroup$ I'm inclined to think there is actually some degree of blind approval going on. Ever since the new system for channeling reviews came about, the number of open tasks plummeted. Since then I've occasionally seen terrible edits approved, and it seems likely that some people might feel they are "snapping up" review opportunities so that they don't slip away. $\endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Dec 31, 2012 at 15:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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