What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

In the suggested edits queue, I found this edit. It added a tag, which I think is not correct, because the question wasn't about the DateTime type (I have no idea whether ActionScript even has one).

When I tried to reject it, this dialog showed up:

Why are you rejecting this edit?

  • copied content

    This edit plagiarizes content from an external source without proper attribution.

  • invalid edit

    This edit is not an edit, but an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post.

  • radical change

    This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost.

  • style opinions

    This edit is about conflicting opinions on style issues, not the actual substance of the post.

  • too minor

    This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.

  • vandalism

    This edit introduces spam, defaces the post in some way, or is otherwise inappropriate.

But I want to reject the edit simply because I think it is incorrect, which doesn't fit any of the given options.

So, my request is that either:

  1. another option is added that says something like “incorrect”, or
  2. another option is added that can encompass all other reasons for rejecting an edit, something like “other”.
share|improve this question
1  
Maybe invalid edit should start "This edit is incorrect, or an attempt..." –  Matthew Read Sep 30 '11 at 14:22
    
In this specific case, the rejecting reason could have been "minor edit" as it does not resolve over issues present in the question, such as a sentence not containing a subject. –  kiamlaluno Sep 30 '11 at 14:56
1  
Good thing is: waffles already stated: Based on: What are the rejection reasons for suggested edits? I have deployed an initial implementation. [..] We will look at improving the list as we go, we may also allow for free-text if we find the list too limiting (we will review the data). –  Arjan Sep 30 '11 at 15:13
    
We don't decide who's wrong and who's right by editing. We decide by voting. If the original context of the question has changed so much that it is now "wrong" (whereas it wasn't before, when you could have just downvoted it) then the edit is already a radical change. I think more appropriate here is the notion of a bad tag edit. –  Lightness Races in Orbit Oct 4 '11 at 17:38

4 Answers 4

up vote 6 down vote accepted

I just revved it, will be deployed soon.

In particular I simplified the decision process.

As a rejector you now need to decide.

  1. Is this wrong => Invalid edit
  2. Is this too timid => Too minor
  3. Is this too major => radical change
  4. Is this spam or vandalism => vandalism
  5. Is this plagiarism => copied content

The stats from the weekend are:

 
too minor   244
invalid edit    177
radical change  99
style opinions  67
vandalism   37
copied content  16

Looking through style opinions it seemed that most cases too minor would have worked, in some cases it was an invalid edit others a mistake.

I do not think we are gaining anything by having style opinions hence it is gone.


Invalid Edit's new copy is:

This edit is incorrect or an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for the same wording as in my comment! –  Matthew Read Oct 4 '11 at 18:48

Agreed (I missed it myself).

Responding to the objection that there are already too many options in that dialog, there's one that doesn't belong here: “copied content” is a major rejection reason for tag wikis, but irrelevant for posts. There should be a separate list for tag wikis, containing “copied content” but not “too minor” nor “style opinions”, and “radical change” should have a different description (something like “unbalanced” — I proposed “Your proposed content does not adequately describe the main use(s) of the tag”.).

Furthermore, until rejection reasons are ironed out, please please include an “other” option. It's better to provide vague feedback like “other” than to have to select a misleading reject reason.

share|improve this answer

I'd like it like this:

Why are you rejecting this edit?

  • invalid edit

    This edit is incorrect, or is about conflicting opinions on style issues not the actual substance of the post, or not an edit but an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post.

  • too minor

    This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.

  • copied content

    This edit plagiarizes content from an external source without proper attribution.

  • radical change

    This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost.

  • vandalism

    This edit introduces spam, defaces the post in some way, or is otherwise inappropriate.

The "invalid edit" description is too long, but covers the plain incorrect edit/retag case.

I don't see a need for a separate "style" option (too many of them already).

Invalid and too minor need to be at the top, they're the most frequent reasons in my experience.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks, I made a change to a post to simplify the example code but got invalid edit which I didn't understand, but that falls under style issues which makes more sense. –  Michael Apr 4 '13 at 10:05

Hmm... With all those reasons (I think there are too many already) it seems like there should be a simple "declined" reason. Maybe one of the existing choices can be reworded to include this use case, but here it is in an additional selection:

  • declined
    This edit may contain incorrect, confusing, or misleading information.
share|improve this answer
6  
Certainly "style opinions" and "too minor" could be combined, since they both address something not being a substantial improvement. Maybe "invalid edit" and "vandalism" since they both introduce content that doesn't belong there. –  agf Sep 30 '11 at 14:58
    
I preferred expanding invalid edit I did not want to add any more reasons. –  waffles Oct 3 '11 at 23:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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