What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

http://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/1778347 The edit was rejected, while the thing I see is an improved post without changing the content. Even so, it says:

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

Why is that? Am I missing something?

EDIT: I didn't make the edit, I just reviewed it.

share|improve this question
1  
Perhaps because the editor emphasized some phrases by boldfacing it, for no apparent reason? In general, don't use ** unless absolutely necessary. –  Rob W Mar 25 '13 at 9:23
    
I didn't think of that one yet. But even so, it would have been better to just edit it. Thank your for your response! –  Joetjah Mar 25 '13 at 9:24

3 Answers 3

up vote 16 down vote accepted

Apart from being a minor edit, it consists of boldfacing several phrases in the post. This is generally tricky, and may change the appearance of the OPs intention. For example:

I want to hug a tree.

versus

I want to hug a tree.

In the first case, the act of "hugging" is emphasized: Whatever happens, I have to hug!
In the second case, "wanting" is emphasized. Now, it appears like a childish "I want .. [now!]".

In general, never use extra markup if it does not have a meaning. It makes text harder to read, because it looks noisy.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for explaining it in a good way. Your answer makes it easy to understand the point of extra markup. –  MagicalPhoenixϡ Mar 25 '13 at 10:11
    
@TheReader Rather, the point of not having extra markup. ;) –  J. Steen Mar 25 '13 at 11:45
    
@J.Steen Yeah, I meant that only.. just wrote point instead of issue :) –  MagicalPhoenixϡ Mar 25 '13 at 11:47

That was a poor edit for a couple of reasons.

  1. It didn't fix basic phrasing problems and typos in the post
  2. It randomly emphasized portions of the text out of context

In my opinion ryadavilli's choice of rejection reason was more apt:

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

However, I can see how adding emphasis could be interpreted as "putting words in the author's mouth", since emphasis does often convey as much meaning as the actual text. In that sense, the original meaning or intent of the post would have been altered by the edit.

share|improve this answer

I would have chosen "too minor" if I were reviewing, but my guess is the "radical edit" (which is name of the reject with that message) was used for the unnecessary (and overuse of) formatting changes.

  • The editor added inline code markup (the backticks) to the names of the table. This is completely unnecessary and a borderline bad edit. Using the backticks makes a post difficult to read and should not be used for anything except something that is actual code or class names.
  • The editor made 2 words bold (probably to highlight them). Again, unnecessary. Highlight is good for highlighting key words to make sure they aren't missed when you have long sentences or critical things that could be lost in text, but just highlighting the verbs simply because they were there isn't needed.
  • The editor left a spelling mistake (joind = joined). In fact the editor bolded the word so he/she should have seen it.
  • The paragraph separation was a decent change, but not critical enough to stand on its own.
  • I would have also either removed DB flavor: Teradata or worked it into a sentence, and definitely not made it bold. That information is already in the tags so it is not needed, but at a minimum it needs to be made into a sentence, not highlighted.

In short, when you have such a short post, too much formatting actually distracts from the post and makes it harder to read, not easier.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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