Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

The new feedback option for rejecting edit requests is nice, albeit a bit restrictive (though the new free-form option helps). But here's one scenario that I feel could do with being spelled out explicitly:

Sometimes people edit the actual code in a question to fix errors. The consequences of this range from insignificant to totally obscuring what the question was about or where the poster was going wrong.

Such edits shouldn't be accepted, naturally, but they could have a dedicated rejection reason, such as "code changes obscure the original problem" or so.

share|improve this question
up vote 8 down vote accepted

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

Doesn't this reason fit the bill? The problem with such edits is that the intent of the question would be lost.

share|improve this answer
I don't like it, since it's too broad. Anything can be radically changed, but I think there are plenty of situations where specifically some coding errors get fixed. It might be a tiny change (hence my reluctance to "radical"), but it's certainly "critical" to the understanding of the OP's mind. – Kerrek SB Nov 19 '11 at 18:03
I think I've never felt as awkward as when I've dished out tons of "radical change" rejections for things that in any sane context would never pass for "radical", but it was the best fit... – Kerrek SB Nov 19 '11 at 18:04
@KerrekSB You should look at the description, not at the name given to the rejecting reason. The description says, "the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost," that is exactly what you are referring to. – kiamlaluno Nov 19 '11 at 18:10
@kiamlaluno: Maybe, though I feel uneasy about it. "Lost" is also too strong. I mean, I can see plenty of edits that do count as "radical". Just the ones I have in mind don't quite fall under that, if that makes any sense. Maybe renaming the reason would help: "Distorting" rather than "radical" perhaps. – Kerrek SB Nov 19 '11 at 18:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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