What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 129 Stack Exchange communities.

Inspired by the Redesigned Tags Page blog post, I edited a bunch of previously blank or terse tag wiki over at Photo-SE.

Maybe I was a little obsessive, but I wrote about 25, most of which were accepted, and some of which were rejected. I'm not complaining about not having these contributions accepted per se, although it sure would be nice to have feedback on what wasn't liked, so I could clean it up and try again. (Or maybe we could have something a little more quorum-based?)

The issue, though: although I wasn't trying somehow "game the system" or being malicious, I got stuck in the Reject Users list, so that if I try to edit a tag wiki, I get a bare white page with the text:

Too many of your edits were rejected, try again in 7 days.

Wow, really? This makes me kind of disinclined to contribute.

Could the algorithm be changed so that it is softened for higher-rep users? Or weighted by the number of accepted contributions?

Or should I just let someone else worry about the tag wikis?

Edit: part of the additional problem is that there were actually only three real edits rejected, but for two of them, I had edited both the excerpt and the tag wiki proper, so I got two rejects counted for each of them.

Edit: I've gotten the reply that the the tag wiki excerpts I propose are not good because they describe how to use the tag rather than defining the word. Please read the blog post linked above and also Should tag wikis answer the "what is this" question?

share|improve this question
    
Are you finalising your affairs over the next week? –  random Mar 29 '11 at 17:10
    
For the curious, 20 were approved and 5 were rejected. 1 2 3 4 5 –  Grace Note Mar 29 '11 at 17:11
    
@random: ha, hopefully not. But if I make a few more changes next week, will a few edits block me off again? –  mattdm Mar 29 '11 at 17:44
    
You may be interested in upvoting this: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/77875/… –  Jon Seigel Mar 30 '11 at 3:05

2 Answers 2

I don't mean to be harsh, but maybe the solution is to write better edits that don't get rejected? Take a break for a week, look at the accepted edits/tag wiki pages and see how you can make your rejected ones more like those.

I agree that it'd be nice to have feedback on rejections, though. It's hard to improve without knowing what was wrong in the first place.


Looking at the rejections in question, it sounds like the issue isn't the severity of the penalty, but rather the visibility and feedback given on approvals/rejections.

On sites that require at least two people to approve an edit, this is more or less taken care of. On sites where only one person is needed to reject an edit, we could require a reason... with the implication that if one can't think of a coherent reason to reject an edit, they should either approve it or leave it for another person to judge.

share|improve this answer
    
Maybe. See one example meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/930/… –  mattdm Mar 29 '11 at 17:10
    
Or this one, photo.stackexchange.com/suggested-edits/99, made and rejected after discussing it on our meta site at meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/899/… –  mattdm Mar 29 '11 at 17:13
    
@mattdm Yeah, no idea why that'd get rejected. See my updated answer. –  Anna Lear Mar 29 '11 at 17:13
    

This edit describes suggested use for an unrelated tag that is a bad tag, IMO.

This edit looks OK, except that you are editorializing in the tag wiki excerpt about how the tag should be used. I much prefer the current version: http://photo.stackexchange.com/tags/photo-editing/info

To keep them clean, tag wiki excerpts should be confined to clear, terse descriptions of the tag only. Elaborate descriptions of how the tag should be used can be placed in the tag wiki body, if necessary.

If a tag really needs this much explanation to be used properly, it should probably just be removed from the system.

share|improve this answer
1  
Please read the "few words of advice on writing tag wiki excerpts" at blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/03/redesigned-tags-page, which directly contradicts you in basically every way. –  mattdm Mar 29 '11 at 17:31
    
If a tag cannot stand on its own, the problem is that the tag is bad, not that it requires a better description of how it should be used. See this discussion. –  Robert Harvey Mar 29 '11 at 17:46
2  
I don't have a problem with describing what the tag is used for in the excerpt, but when you begin comparing and contrasting different tags and their uses in the excerpt, I think you start getting diminishing returns. Some tag excerpts actually get truncated in the hover dropdown because of lengthy explanations like this, and that doesn't help anybody. –  Robert Harvey Mar 29 '11 at 17:55
    
    
I edited my answer to remove that one, and clarified my position on another. –  Robert Harvey Mar 30 '11 at 3:01
    
Well, see this on the clarified-position one: meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/899/… — the problem with the current version is that it's actually wrong. –  mattdm Mar 30 '11 at 11:34
    
Also see meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/905/… –  mattdm Mar 30 '11 at 11:35
1  
Regarding: meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/905/…. As you can see, if you provide a good description of the tag in the tag body, it makes it pretty apparent how the tag should be used. –  Robert Harvey Mar 30 '11 at 17:00
    
Regarding: meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/899/…. I address this in the last sentence of my answer. –  Robert Harvey Mar 30 '11 at 17:02
    
Regarding: meta.photo.stackexchange.com/questions/905/…... If you really want to go down this road, the entire tag wiki excerpt must fit into the hover dropdown without truncation. –  Robert Harvey Mar 31 '11 at 18:58
    
See my new meta question here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/85518/… –  Robert Harvey Mar 31 '11 at 19:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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