The rejecting reasons for the suggested edits including the following two reasons:

  • invalid edit
    This edit is incorrect or an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post.
  • vandalism
    This edit introduces spam, defaces the post in some way, or is otherwise inappropriate.

While I understand what vandalism is referring to, what I don't understand is the highlighted phrases, and why they are in two different rejecting reasons.

For example, take in consideration the following suggested edit (the highlighted part is the added one):

You should use drupal_add_js.

hook_init would be a good place to add a js for a custom module.

In the answer, there isn't any comment where the OP is suggesting to also use hook_init() as the suggested edit does. What reported in the edit is something the user who suggested the edit wants to add; the OP could also ignore that possibility, or disagree with that being a possibility.

Should the edit be rejected as invalid edit, or as vandalism because it is not appropriate? Maybe the "radical change" is more appropriate in this case, but supposing that "radical change" were not one of the choices, what should I choose between "invalid edit" and "vandalism"?

What is the difference between "this edit is incorrect," and "otherwise inappropriate"?


That seems like a clear case for invalid edit. I use it for when the editor means well, but should be commenting or writing their own answer. I save vandalism for edits that are clearly mean spirited, like adding "this answer is totally wrong" or "ignore everything after this line", along with spam and other things that are clearly not co-operative.

I don't get too worked up about the explanatory sentences in the flag reasons. My heuristic goes something like this:

  • Trying to comment/fix the answer, beyond formatting or adding a link, and mean well? Invalid.
  • Trying to be mean? Vandalism.
  • Fixed a typo or tag, while leaving a "thanks in advance", or a bunch of other typos, or unformatted code? Too Minor.
  • I recognize the content from elsewhere? Never has happened to me, but would be Copied Content.
  • Rewrote the whole answer? Either Too Radical or Invalid

I don't have numbers on my reject rates, but I am guessing Invalid far outweighs all the other reasons for me.

| improve this answer | |
  • What it's not clear to me is the "otherwise inappropriate" for the "vandalism" rejecting reason. To me "this edit introduces spam, defaces the post in some way" already describes what vandalism means in this case; the "otherwise inappropriate" seems a catch-all phrase for which I am not clear why it is placed right there. Is there any case of vandalism where the edit is not adding spam, or defacing the post in any way? – kiamlaluno Jan 9 '12 at 15:33
  • Maybe deleting something? It depends on your interpretation of "defacing" I suppose. I'll update the answer a bit. – Kate Gregory Jan 9 '12 at 15:43
  • I guess you are right about that depending on what you mean with defacing. Your answer clears out my doubts. – kiamlaluno Jan 9 '12 at 16:11

Incorrect: the person suggesting the edit made honest mistake, usually unintentionally - for example newbie who think he should add his code into answer posted by somebody else.

Otherwise inappropriate: general reason for something bad that was done to the post intentionally - for example someone adding "asdfasdfasdfasdf".. it's not spam though it might fall under "defaces the post" as well.

The above are my own guidelines, not sure this is the original intention of the developers when they wrote the system. :)

| improve this answer | |
  • I would say "Incorrect" means adding "E.g., 2+2=5" to an answer explaining addition, for example. It has to do with the content of the edit, not the impressions of the user doing the editing, which can never really be known. – user154510 Jan 9 '12 at 16:51
  • I think @ShadowWizard is saying that the suggested edit is an invalid edit, in the first case. I don't think he is referring to the impressions of the user suggesting the edit. – kiamlaluno Jan 9 '12 at 17:39

I would think that if an edit was flagged as innapropriate and vandalism, this would be due to the fact that someone was trolling or something. For instance, if someone's question had horrible grammar, and someone thought it'd be funny to edit the question and make a joke about the OP's grammar, this would be flagged as innapropriate and vandalism.

So in most cases I'd just say its incorrect.

| improve this answer | |
  • I am referring to the rejecting reasons for suggested edits. It's not the case of somebody who edited a post to make a joke about the OP's grammar, as in that case the post can be flagged if who makes the edit has the privilege of editing any posts. Maybe it is just a case of using different terms: When you reject a suggested edit, you don't say you flagged it; you simply reject it. – kiamlaluno Jan 9 '12 at 15:26
  • @kiamlaluno sorry, misunderstood. – Gabriel Jan 9 '12 at 15:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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