5

Recently, this suggested edit of mine did get a "Reject and Edit". The subsequent editor rejecting my edit did not make any different changes from mine, as you can see here. They did however omit some of my changes.

Besides the two grammar corrections that did not reach the required amount of changes required for a suggested edit I further split a very long sentence in two and made some really minor (nitpicky) punctuation changes. The latter two changes were omitted.

I have two questions I hope somebody can answer.

  1. Was there something inherently wrong with my suggested edit? The reason for rejection does not really resonate with me. As my main edits were adopted I feel this could have been resolved with an "Accept and Edit".
  2. Is there no better option to chose for rejections in a case like mine? I certainly did fix the issues despite the reason chosen stating otherwise.
| |
  • 2
    I agree, Accept and Edit was the better option here. – Masked Man Jun 9 '17 at 10:56
  • 1
    To me you were just making changes to hit the edit changes limit, which was the wrong way to go about things. In the end the post only needed those two changes and the rest were superfluous. Sadly, as a low rep user there is an edit limit and the reasoning is mostly covered here – Draken Jun 9 '17 at 11:31
8

That was me. I left off your "really minor (nitpicky) punctuation changes" because I believed they made the sentence grammatically incorrect without making it at all easier to understand (you shouldn't typically start a sentence with a conjunction).

I chose to Reject and Edit rather than Accept and Edit because it made more sense to me to start from scratch to make the minor revisions so I could keep the OP's original wording for the section I didn't want to change. I don't know of any standard guidance on when to pick one over the other except to decide whether it's easier to start from the changes or from the original. Honestly, with edits this minor, the difference between Accept and Edit and Reject and Edit is pretty inconsequential.

As for the rejection reason, that is automatically generated by SE and isn't something I specifically chose. I think that's the reason given anytime someone selects Reject and Edit.

| |
  • 1
    Thanks for answering. I assumed the message by the Community ♦ user was generated automatically. It just was so odd to receive a message saying "You did not fix critical issues with this post. Check the edit history to see what should have been changed". Especially in this specific case it is just not fitting. Again, thanks for clearing things up, I understand your reasoning. – Søren D. Ptæus Jun 9 '17 at 13:50
  • 5
    "I don't know of any standard guidance on when to pick one over the other" Interestingly I can't find a meta thread about it. But common sense would say that any time you'd reject the change, you'd also want hit "Reject and Edit" rather than "Improve". The former is to send a signal that there was something wrong, the latter is for good edits that can still use some extra work. – Lilienthal Jun 9 '17 at 15:19
5

Was there something inherently wrong with my suggested edit?

I agree with David's take on this. En dash to em dash conversion is technically correct but rather pedantic and usually not done or recommended online. Use of a single em dash in-line to separate a phrase is also rather controversial and the edit doesn't improve the use of parentheses, in fact making it worse by starting the next phrase with a conjunction.

Formatting changes like this are controversial as we typically leave it up to the author to pick a style as long as it's consistent and doesn't make for awkward reading. Further more, as Draken commented, it's usually the result of trying to hit the minimum edit count.

If it was just the em dash or just the superfluous edits most people would probably choose to Improve, but add them together and the right call is probable to reject. The point after all is to give you feedback on your edits.

All that being said, I do understand where your edits are coming from and believe they were made in good faith. Please don't be discouraged by this. It's good that you're asking feedback.

The reason for rejection does not really resonate with me. [...] Is there no better option to chose for rejections in a case like mine? I certainly did fix the issues despite the reason chosen stating otherwise.

As David stated, users aren't prompted to select a reason when opting for Reject and Edit. The general idea is that the post did need edit work but the reviewed edit didn't change enough or changed too much.

As my main edits were adopted I feel this could have been resolved with an "Accept and Edit".

The problem is that part of your edit was considered harmful or too minor. At that point standard practice is to reject to send a clear signal to the user that the edit wasn't correct. Part of the reason behind the Suggested Edit review system is that users get feedback on their initial changes. It's only once they have enough site experience they are left to their own devices.

Note that the fact that this prevents well-intended minor edits from people with less than 2k site rep is an unfortunate side-effect. But it prevents more problems than it creates.

| |
  • 1
    Thanks for your take on this and again for your comment on David's answer. I think you made a good distinction on when "Improve" should be chosen over "Reject & Edit" and vice-versa. In this sense "Reject & Edit" was the right choice here, although the automatic message sent hides the actual intentions that were tried to express. – Søren D. Ptæus Jun 12 '17 at 7:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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