5

Here is the question

I had corrected the spellings and grammatical errors with better readability instead of congested lines. But still, it got rejected with a -2.

Any thoughts?

| |
  • 1
    Reviewers approved it but then the OP rejected it. The -2 is a removal of the +2 from the edit being approved. Only way to know why the OP put the grammar errors back in is to ask them. – BSMP May 3 at 7:12
  • In such situations is there anything else that could be done except for ignoring? – Swarley May 3 at 7:14
  • 2
    Like what? I think if OP wants their question their wqy, we should grant them this right. What exactly is the problem? – guest May 3 at 13:02
  • 5
    A moderator could explain to the OP that they should be allowing edits that improve their posts. You could also leave a comment with a link to this meta discussion so they can respond here. If a post is unclear in its unedited form, down voting is valid. I think it’s likely they just don’t get the editing system here; they only have 2 posts. – BSMP May 3 at 15:32
  • 3
    Some people get defensive about their posts and don't understand that edits are intended to be helpful. It generally isn't worth the hassle of getting into an edit war, especially if your edits have to go through review. I would suggest just letting this one go. – Booga Roo May 4 at 4:09
  • 7
    @BSMP Any member of the community can explain that, and usually should. The time to flag it for attention is when edit wars start or anyone involved is acting belligerent. I've rolled this back and left a comment now. – Lilienthal May 4 at 7:41
  • 3
    OP might not have rolled it back for this reason, but there were some issues with your edit. "How to" is not a question, the correct grammar here is "agreed to", it's "relieve" and making parts of the post bold is fairly subjective. – Bernhard Barker May 5 at 7:56
  • 2
    If you would make whole sentences of my question bold I would also roll it back. It is not my style to shout at people. Don't make formatting changes if the question is perfectly readable without them. – BrtH May 6 at 2:28
  • @BrtH Apart, from formatting, there were spelling and grammatical errors too. SERVER and SERVE arent the same. Plus bold doesnt signify shouting its just a way of highlighting the crucial part of the paragraph. – Swarley May 6 at 4:06
  • 5
    @Swarley "bold doesn't signify shouting" - some people would say the same about UPPERCASE. The interpretation of bold, uppercase, underline, italics, etc. is heavily affected by personal opinion, so it's probably best left up to the author. I'm personally quite a big fan of conservative use of bold, but I feel the question in a post should be emphasised through structure (e.g. put it close to the end of the post) rather than formatting, and even slight overuse or misuse of bold draws too much focus, making the non-bold parts harder to focus on and posts much, much harder to read for me. – Bernhard Barker May 6 at 7:56
  • hahahah with all due respect @Dukeling to increase the focus on errors I used the uppercase :) anyway I get the formatting part but spelling and grammatical errors are not done. – Swarley May 6 at 8:01
  • 1
    @Lilienthal would you mind posting your comment as an answer? – Swarley May 6 at 8:02
  • 2
    In addition to the points about subjective styling, it was an objectively bad edit. Some improvements were made, but many more were needed, and it introduced new errors. – Alex M May 7 at 21:44
  • 1
    I'm not sure if the title was meant to be ambiguous but incorrect edits should not be approved of (i.e. disapproved) in the first place. Perhaps you would like to clarify? – Mari-Lou A May 14 at 9:04
1

If you edit was incorrect then it should be disapproved!!

I can't see the edits in question but if the title of your post is any guide you need to take a lot more care when posting edits to ensure what you are changing is a) correct and b) improves the post.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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