Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 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

Users honestly shouldn't be able to. It's contradictory to the peer review and improve system that SO is all about.

If someone corrects my grammar and I find it offensive, too bad. I shouldn't be able to reject the edit. Perhaps if edits are tied for approval and rejection, a third should be required as well. It's too easy for good edits to get rejected.

Perhaps I am thinking in too simple of terms. But, how is it good for users to be able to reject edits to their own posts?

share|improve this question
Because most of the time, they are in a much better position to judge if an edit is good or not. I've had to fend off plenty of well-meant but wrong changes to my answers, for example. – Martijn Pieters Nov 3 '12 at 9:51
@Michael, have a look at this edit suggestion. It was already rejected when I noticed it (fortunately), but I sure wouldn't have appreciated not being able to reject it myself, just because it concerned one of my answers. – Frédéric Hamidi Nov 3 '12 at 9:53
Does it happen that often? Can't it be handled by comments after the suggested edit was rejected? (Which would need Decision on rejected edits should be displayed as a notification to the editor.) – Arjan Nov 3 '12 at 10:01
@FrédéricHamidi rejections like this are what I don't like to see. – Michael J. Gray Nov 3 '12 at 10:04
@Michael, I actually agree with the rejection of the edit you're mentioning in your last comment. It was indeed quite minor, and the terminology Hans used was understandable. Some of the meaning (do this the Right Way) was also lost in the edit. – Frédéric Hamidi Nov 3 '12 at 10:07
@MichaelJ.Gray That particular suggested edit is quite a poor one. And "grammar corrections" does not do it justice as a message. I might have rejected that one as well. P.s. the "annoying capitalization" in that case is derived from the expression "The Right Way (tm)", sometimes used to suggest something is the one and only correct way. – Bart Nov 3 '12 at 10:12
@Bart I agree the edit is minor, however it is sufficient and alters the content enough to improve its quality. If you were to reject it, you would simply be saying "No, this is the right way." As for the comment about "The Right Way (tm)", I find that silly and not needed on a question and answer board for software developers. Generally people want to see the questions and answers, but not anything else. Useless fluff in a post should be removed if it adds nothing to the content. SO is much like a collaborative manual filled with solutions to real world problems. Silly things reduce quality. – Michael J. Gray Nov 3 '12 at 23:05
@FrédéricHamidi Are you suggesting that SO answers should take an authoritative tone and attempt to dominate as being the "right way" to do something? This would give an image of arrogance and might turn people away from the board. I agree it changed the meaning ever so slightly, but I also believe it improved the content because the tone was altered from arrogant to helpful and preserved the overall solution. – Michael J. Gray Nov 3 '12 at 23:11
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Yes, this is a collaboratively edited Q&A and users better get used to that. Improvement of your posts may happen at any time and you'll generally just have to accept that.

But edits unfortunately are not always good. I've had posts edited which introduced problems or changed the question/answer fundamentally. You might argue, "you can always roll that back". True, but why wait and have reviewers spend time on something when you know you would reject it anyway? I think it's fair enough to have the OP be part of the review process of a suggested edit. Especially when the OP is the one person who knows what he intended to say.

This does not imply that the OP should abuse this "power". Fair edits are fair. If a user does not like the idea of his posts being edited, he should perhaps not participate. If I see such rollbacks which I consider a bad idea, I generally leave a comment to the effect that the edit improved the post and he might want to think twice about doing something which would essentially hurt his content. In general this is sufficient.

Should the user persistently roll back reasonable edits, perhaps a flag for moderator attention is in order. A message with a big diamond behind it might have a bit more of an effect.

So in summary, please let me as the OP have early input on suggested edits to my content. But don't let me abuse it.

share|improve this answer
Well said. However, this would mean that we would need to impose a new policy regarding what is acceptable in terms of the use of voting for edits. How do you determine if a user is abusing their editing privileges? Would rejecting an edit for grammar corrections because you don't like the editor be considered abuse? – Michael J. Gray Nov 3 '12 at 23:02

Well, even if this were implemented, nothing would prevent the OP from rolling back to the previous version once it got approved.

Also, it's my dang post. If I want to keep the grammar mistakes, so be it. Moreover, the editor may not have understood my question, and I may think it changes too much of it.

In short, I disagree. Just like any user can edit any of his posts, he may choose to instantly approve or reject and suggested edit.

share|improve this answer
Isn't it all about quality though? If an answer is correct but has poor grammar, it puts a bit of a dent in the quality of the content. For example, I can't stand when people write with Annoying Capitalization. – Michael J. Gray Nov 3 '12 at 9:58
"Also, it's my dang post. If I want to keep the grammar mistakes, so be it." -- I disagree with that. (Though I do not see how the proposed prohibiting of rejecting edits to one's own posts would help.) – Arjan Nov 3 '12 at 9:59
@Arjan I would propose that editing of your own content always be allowed, perhaps at a cost of rep if it rolls back an approved revision though. It would deter people from rejecting edits to their posts out of spite and with no intentions of making the content better for everyone. – Michael J. Gray Nov 3 '12 at 10:00
@Arjan: Well, it may well be that the grammar mistakes are intentional, or not at all mistakes. That's where I'm getting at. If I think that the edit will change the meaning of my post, I should be able to reject it. – Madara Uchiha Nov 3 '12 at 10:02
Agreed, but I even, to some degree, disagree with the "it's my dang post". Of course, there's different ways to interpret that short statement, but for me "Other people can edit my posts?!" is the main reason to prefer Stack Exchange over other sites. – Arjan Nov 3 '12 at 10:05
Exactly. Anybody has the right to edit your posts, and you have just as much right to decide whether those edits are valid or not, but please just make sure you don't abuse this right. (I think the part about keeping grammar mistakes is mere hyperbole.) – BoltClock's a Unicorn Nov 3 '12 at 10:05
@BoltClock'saUnicorn: It is, I was pushing the situation to the edge on purpose. But yes. – Madara Uchiha Nov 3 '12 at 11:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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