I am trying to make an edit to this question:
For this, I have made two attempts to suggest an edit and both the times the edit suggestion got rejected:
The combined score of the above two suggestions is 1 Approval and 6 Rejection votes.
All I change is immaterial bluff which shouldn't be there in the post in the first place. So, how does that change the original meaning or intent of the post?
Could someone with edit privileges make the edit on my behalf if this seems appropriate?
As one of the people who rejected it the second time, I'll give what I was thinking when I reviewed it. Looking back, I'll admit that the edit was more valid than I gave credit for.
Textually, it did look like a lot of the question was being removed, and it looked like one of the things that was being removed was a clarification on the question asker's part. (Removing the part starting with "Final:" does look like the right thing to do.)
So, it boiled down to me seeing an edit with message "removing unnecessary information" that also removed a clarification. That by itself sounds like something that could change the meaning of the post, as what if the clarification was important? (judging from the question, it certainly was to the asker).
What I didn't see was that what the edit itself did was remove the part starting with "Final:" and condense the original post and "clarification" into something that made an effort to state clearly what the original poster was asking. You could blame it on me reviewing too fast, and you'd probably be right.
Had the edit summary been something along the lines of "removed unnecessary ending and combined "Edit" section into original post", I would have given the edit much more thought. I'm not sure if I would have approved it then, but also not sure if I would have rejected it. More likely I would have skipped it and let people like Dukeling and Yannis make the judgment call.
The edit itself was good and valid, and the reviewers do need to take much of the blame for not being thorough enough to see what was actually being changed, but I think you need to take some of the blame yourself.
I think the key to the rejection was your edit description was vague.
Your description for both edits was
removed unnecessary information
This tells me very little. Sure it says what you did in a very general sense but neither why you were removing it nor why it was unnecessary info.
Normally you can get away with vague and/or general descriptions because the context of the edit speak for itself, but any time you make a significant change to the post and your don't provide any really description for the edit, you run the risk of getting rejected.
Editors should be taking 20-30 seconds per post, especially one that changes as much as this one, to see what was done, and even clicking through to see the entire post and all of its answers/comments, but often they don't. Some reviewers are just impatient and are looking at quantity as much as quality, some are trying to get through the reviews before the robo-reviewers get to them (not realizing that they are close to becoming robo-reviewers themselves), and many just want to make their vote count (taking more than a few seconds means that someone might come in and approve it before they can reject it).
Since this is occurring, this is why you should try to take an extra few seconds to provide some more detail in the edit description to make it more obvious to the reviewer. Something like:
Removed information pertaining to an answer and excess commentary added by the OP that is just noise
would have been more clear what you were trying to remove and why.
