What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 127 Stack Exchange communities.

I recently saw an old (poorly phrased/laid out) question, which was given a bounty by someone else.

And I thought to improve it some, maybe too much since the edit was rejected.

Can I please have some feedback as to why this edit was rejected?

  • In my defense - I did not change any meaning on it (as far as I can tell); rather, I improved the grammar and separated the key points from a run-on paragraph to bullet points. At the same time, through the use of bullet points, the question looks easier and less intimidating by not having so many spaced lines of explanations.

  • Secondly, I added code blocks to lines of code to easily see what the author had already attempted.

  • Thirdly, the title is a mess.

Was this too much on my end? Should I have not done this much?

share|improve this question
2  
Updated with your edit stackoverflow.com/posts/3687578/revisions. –  hayd Apr 7 '13 at 18:53
    
Fantastic! Thanks very much @hayden!! –  Jesse Apr 7 '13 at 18:56
    
There are some things I'd disagree with in that edit, mostly because I think breaking it into lists was the lazy option and it should instead have been reworded. However there's really nothing that makes it worthy of being rejected. –  Anthony Grist Apr 7 '13 at 19:16
    
@AnthonyGrist I'll accept some critiques - what do you suggest differently? –  Jesse Apr 7 '13 at 19:33
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 14 down vote accepted

Your edit was extensive and that is probably what the reviewers who rejected the edit saw and rejected, without diving into the actual changes.

Unfortunately we have lots of reviewers who don't really do justice to the review queue (robo reviewing).

In my opinion that the edit should have been approved.

share|improve this answer
3  
Really, Oded? The edit made formatting and grammatical changes. It barely touched content. It should have been approved, but ASP.NET MVC knowledge is in no way needed to make that call. –  Michael Petrotta Apr 7 '13 at 16:47
3  
Yeah, I have no experience whatsoever with the technology, but it seems like a perfectly fine edit to me. Lazy reviewing I'd say. –  Bart Apr 7 '13 at 16:54
    
It is a bummer that people do this kind of thing. I'm kind of sided with Oded's robo reviewing opinion. =\ - Per this general opinion, can someone with enough rep redo the edit, or should I suggest the edit once again? Or, maybe I should just give it up? –  Jesse Apr 7 '13 at 17:17
3  
I find it somewhat humorous that the three users who have a lower reject rate than approve rate rejected the edit, and the one user who has a higher reject rate than approve rate approved the edit. What the hell?? –  animuson Apr 7 '13 at 17:22
    
@MichaelPetrotta - Fair point. –  Oded Apr 7 '13 at 17:41
1  
@Jesse Not really robo reviewing here in my opinion. People see so much changes and think it's changing too much. It takes some time to understand those changes are all valid and the overall result is actually better than the original post, but from first or quick look it indeed looks invalid and I think many reviewers cast only that first quick look. Enough to pass audits and review the trivial stuff but not enough on those cases. How to handle this? That's a great question. –  Shadow Wizard Apr 7 '13 at 17:59
    
@ShaWizDowArd While I agree with your general statement, but isn't robo reviewing borderline with auditing what's easy and rejecting what seems like too much? Besides that, if you look at the Markdown differences, it is so much less. –  Jesse Apr 7 '13 at 18:04
    
@Jesse robo reviewing is more extreme, usually users who just click (usually approve) without even giving one look. I'm pretty sure the rejectors in this case do have approvals and good reviews on their history. As for markdown diff most users have no idea it exists. –  Shadow Wizard Apr 7 '13 at 20:03
add comment

This may be a problem with the diff engine. This is what it looks like in rendered output (the default and what most people use):

http://i.stack.imgur.com/HKr0g.png

It looks like it changes a lot. However, this is what it looks like in the markdown view:

http://i.stack.imgur.com/H4P7u.png

As you can see, it looks much less like it changes the post a lot.


At first glance, in the first screenshot it looks like it completely changes the post. However when you switch to the second screenshot, it is obvious it should have been approved.

In my opinion, it was a good edit. The problem is with the system. The diff engine probably needs changing. Just glance at the first screenshot. Would you approve it? I wouldn't, and many reviewers think "AHHHH bad edit" when they see so much green and red.

share|improve this answer
1  
The problem is with the reviewers. They may have seen the rendered output diffs, but didn't bother to read them properly. –  Oded Apr 7 '13 at 18:14
2  
@Oded Just glance at the first screenshot. Would you approve it? I wouldn't, and many reviewers think "AHHHH bad edit" when they see so much green and red. –  Doorknob Apr 7 '13 at 18:16
2  
Well, I would read through before deciding. Reading it carefully, I saw that the changes were mostly structural. If you would reject it just based on the wall of red, you are doing a bad review job. –  Oded Apr 7 '13 at 18:17
    
@Oded However, many people will do that because they know that many colors means many changes. If the "rendered output" display wouldn't show that much red and green, it probably would have been approved. –  Doorknob Apr 7 '13 at 18:18
1  
It renders the diff this way because you're removing text from an existing paragraph and adding an unordered list. It is rendering correctly. It's a matter of reviewers not knowing how diffs get rendered and not caring to investigate a little further. Seeing "a bunch of green and red" is a terrible excuse not to continue looking over the edit. There's no problem with the diff engine, only the reviewers. –  animuson Apr 7 '13 at 18:24
2  
@animuson So adding a single character, -, will cause an entire paragraph to look like it was removed and an entire paragraph to look like it was added? Seeing this, it looks like he completely changed the post. –  Doorknob Apr 7 '13 at 18:27
2  
@Doorknob: Only if you're too lazy to actually read it. The green and red are there to highlight changes. You're still supposed to actually look them over. Changing a paragraph to a list is still a change, and it would be highlighted accordingly. –  animuson Apr 7 '13 at 18:44
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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