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

A nice user suggested good corrective edit to my answer. The edit, though very good and desirable, was rejected. I do not understand the reasons, and I did not find a way to contact those people who rejected it. What can I do to re-approve the edit?

share|improve this question
could you not just edit the answer yourself? You should be able to as it is your answer. – Rory Alsop Jun 14 '12 at 7:55
Probably was rejected since it modified the code. It's really better if only the post owner modifies the code. – Manishearth Jun 14 '12 at 7:55
Yeah, it is easy to do the edit on my own. I will. I just wanted to avoid discouraging the user who pointed at the mistake. It was probably his first attempt on StackOverflow... – Vilém Kurz Jun 14 '12 at 8:20
up vote 25 down vote accepted

Once it's been rejected, you can no longer approve it. If you managed to get in contact with that user, you could have them re-submit the suggestion and approve it yourself. That's unlikely, so if you really feel the edit is helpful, then just apply the edits to your post on your own.

Suggested edits to code usually sit in the queue for a while until someone who actually understands the code can review it. They are often rejected as "incorrect" simply because chances are an edit to the code will be incorrect. Reviewing suggested edits from the queue, you don't have the context of the question with the edit. So if the person reviewing it is unwilling to read through the question and the edit isn't blatantly obvious, they are usually reluctant to approve it.

share|improve this answer
I understand that changing of the code might be dangerous. But I do not understand, why someone refuses the edit even if does not have a clue what is going on. I as the author did not even have a chance to approve the edit - it was rejected already. – Vilém Kurz Jun 14 '12 at 8:22
Part of the reason they get rejected is to clear them out of the queue. They take up space. I remember looking at that edit, and I remember it being in the queue for pretty much the entire day. – animuson Jun 14 '12 at 8:24
Why can't reviewers have an ignore button for things they feel they don't have the expertise to decide on? It would move out of their queue into their ignored list, and would wait for someone more familiar with the area to check it. Quality is important on SO, and having a system that encourages decisions by people who don't know is surely a mistake. – AndrewC Sep 14 '12 at 21:46
@AndrewC: They do now in the new review system. They can click Not Sure. That doesn't necessarily mean everyone will. Sure, a majority will skip past it, just like they can not take action on it if it's in the queue, but eventually someone is going to attempt to review it and if they're not familiar enough with the topic, chances increase that the review will be incorrect. – animuson Sep 14 '12 at 21:48
Does this have any implications for attribution issues? If a user's edit is accepted, then it's recorded in the edit history, but if a post owner just copies text from the rejected (but worthy) edit into the post, then there's an attribution issue, isn't there? – Joshua Taylor Feb 1 '14 at 15:11
Overnight, someone fixed a simple and blatant compile time bug in my code ( It was approved once, and rejected three times. It seems I really should be able to accept this edit, if only so the system can somehow penalise the three idiots who rejected it? – Abhi Beckert May 3 at 22:04

Both rejectors are not really active in those tags, so I assume they thought the edit changes too much in the post, not knowing if it's even correct or not.

You can contact them by commenting on one their old posts and explain the situation thus preventing them from future mistakes; however, what's done is done and there is no way to approve a rejected suggestion.

If this was a good edit, just edit your post yourself with those changes: you don't need approval to do that. :)

share|improve this answer
You can contact them by commenting on one their old posts and explain the situation thus preventing them from furute mistakes... I'd not suggest will ping other people too and add noise to an existing comment thread. This smells like a poor-mans PM system and should not be encouraged in my opinion. – Time Traveling Bobby Jun 14 '12 at 7:58
@Garden in my opinion it's for a good cause and no other people will be pinged. Comment on an answer won't send notification to the question author - I already checked it in the past. Of course the comment should be deleted after a while even if no response was given. – Shadow Wizard Jun 14 '12 at 8:01
What good cause? "You rejected that edit, you could have accepted it, it's correct - Ok"? I don't think that contacting these users will do anything, the only thing which could be achieved is most likely that those users will start ignoring edits with/in certain tags...if that is favorable is another question. – Time Traveling Bobby Jun 14 '12 at 8:13
@Garden I know C# for example. If someone will forget a semicolon then somebody else will suggest edit adding this semicolon I will approve it even though it's a code change. But when in other language I can't know how minor was the error or how good is the fix so usually I stay away from code changes in languages out my expertise. Anyway my point here is that if someone think someone else made a mistake and can help them improve, then it's worth to try and contact them. Not flood them with comments just one single comment that you will also delete later to avoid clutter. – Shadow Wizard Jun 14 '12 at 8:19
While pinging someone on an old post and later deleting it is a good idea, and I myself did it in the past once, one can take the path of inviting the user to a chat room (if both are privileged) and discussing the situation which I also tried and prefers over anything. – Firelord Jul 23 '15 at 23:26

It's reasonable for reviewers who are unsure whether a suggested edit is correct to reject it, and in the case of code edits it's generally best to reject them unless you are very sure they are right.

But having said that, I think that it should always remain possible for the author of the answer to accept a suggested edit, even if the edit has been rejected by other reviewers. It is frustrating when you get a notification, go to the review page, look at the suggested edit, think ah yes, that's quite right, good suggestion, reach for the "Approve" button, only to find that it is not there, and that if you want to apply the suggestion, you have to laboriously copy and paste it, and the suggester gets no credit.

share|improve this answer
Code edits are special--even if they correct the code, they are most often not correct edits in the sense that they often run an especially high risk of making a post say something different from what was intended. Code edits to questions are particularly unlikely to be correct edits. Users who believe an edit is wrong because of the way it change code should reject it; when you believe an edit is wrong, you should reject it. But no one should ever accept or reject an edit because they have no idea if it's correct. That's what the Skip button is for! – Eliah Kagan Feb 10 '13 at 23:37
I don't see why this answer has been so severely downvoted. Just a few days ago, some (apparently incompetent) mods rejected a very useful edit to one of my posts, and I had to re-submit it manually. As an OP, I would very much appreciate to have a chance of overriding decisions of such witless reviewers. – Adam Mar 15 '14 at 11:35
@Adam: I think people may be disagreeing with my first paragraph, not the second. – Gareth Rees Mar 15 '14 at 12:41
@Adam: He would have gotten an upvote if he had only written the second paragraph. ;-) – user Feb 2 at 6:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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