What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 130 Stack Exchange communities.

I recently submitted this edit suggestion. It makes some small but obvious improvements to the question:

  • The title "SQL Server Service Broker" is not a question and gives no clue as to what you're asking about Service Broker. I edited the title to basically repeat the question in the body.
  • The question is not about SQL (no code, queries, etc.) so I removed that tag. The question is specific to SQL Server 2008 so I added that tag.

I guess these simple improvements were not as obvious as I thought they were because they were summarily rejected by two reviewers who gave the following reasons:

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

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

What?

  • How do I talk to these reviewers to understand their reasoning? Should I even bother?
  • What controls the quality of a reviewer's decisions?
  • How do I resubmit my edit without triggering a little edit fight? (Or is my edit really that bad?)
share|improve this question
1  
OK, I just did the edit, taken care of. (and cast a close vote). –  Lance Roberts Nov 1 '11 at 23:03

3 Answers 3

up vote 12 down vote accepted

Just resubmit it. While the question should be closed as 'Not Constructive', your edit looked just fine. Who knows why they rejected it, especially the plagiarize reason, but everyone makes mistakes on those.

share|improve this answer
8  
I think plagiarized gets picked frequently because it's the default and people are too lazy to go through the list looking for a real reason –  Michael Mrozek Nov 1 '11 at 23:00
10  
The plagiarize reason is checked by default, strangely, so in practice it's the didn't-pick-a-reason reason. This has already been noted and formally requested. –  Gilles Nov 1 '11 at 23:00
2  
@Giles - Amusingly, the OP on that request is one of the rejectors here. –  ire_and_curses Nov 1 '11 at 23:25
1  
@ire_and_curses not amusing, that is clear abuse. –  waffles Nov 1 '11 at 23:32
3  
@waffles - not sure I understand. Can you expand the context? Who is abusing who? –  ire_and_curses Nov 1 '11 at 23:33
3  
@ire - I think he's suggesting that since the rejector is clearly aware of the problem, he's actively abusing the system by refusing to pick an appropriate reason. –  Shog9 Nov 2 '11 at 0:08
    
@ire_and_curses what shog said –  waffles Nov 2 '11 at 0:48
1  
@waffles The guy who made that feature request chose invalid edit though, not copied content. –  lunboks Nov 2 '11 at 0:55

Question is too old for such edit to really matter. No need to bump it to the front.

There is no "question too old" reason so they just chose in random, the "plagiarizes content from an external source without proper attribution" is simply the first and default reason.

share|improve this answer
3  
That seems like an odd default reason. –  Chris Frederick Nov 1 '11 at 23:18
5  
So you say, but it's pretty annoying when searching for a solution to something and you get a bunch of results that have non-descriptive titles or are mistagged. –  Troyen Nov 1 '11 at 23:55
    
I'm with @Troyen. I edited the post simply to improve it, not to bump it to the front page. (Given that the question, ultimately, is not appropriate for SO, is beside the point.) I came across it in the "Related" sidebar and found the title to be utterly useless. –  Nick Chammas Nov 2 '11 at 1:02
2  
Would an "edit-but-don't-bump" feature be reasonable and/or feasible? –  Keith Thompson Nov 2 '11 at 1:46
    
@KeithThompson No –  lunboks Nov 2 '11 at 1:57
    
@Troyen sometimes it's true, but personally I don't think it's true in case of that question. It can always be edited with 2K+ member who think it should be changed, I won't start Rollback fight over this just won't approve such suggestion. –  Shadow Wizard Nov 2 '11 at 7:43

This happened due to a bug of mine. Hopefully the change I am just about to deploy will make sure it does not happen in future.

Change default selection in edit rejection dialogue box from "copied content" to "invalid edit"

I agree the specific edit should be rejected:

  • The word "cool" in the title is really not needed.
  • Closed questions really do not need to be bumped, there is little value in improving it.
share|improve this answer
    
The question was closed after I asked about it here. :) And yes, the word is cool is not needed, but rest of edit to the title gave it some more value (where it had little before). –  Nick Chammas Nov 2 '11 at 0:58
    
@Nick fair enough don't dwell on it, the big reason for this mistake was just fixed. In general question asking for shopping lists should be avoided. –  waffles Nov 2 '11 at 1:01
    
I agree, the Service Broker question was ultimately inappropriate for SO. My question here about reviewer actions is independent of that, though. Anyway, thank you for tweaking the relevant UX. And nice freehand. Heh. –  Nick Chammas Nov 2 '11 at 1:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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