4

Someone tried to make a helpful edit to one of my posts. (A community wiki post which specifically states "please add definitions as needed"). https://stackoverflow.com/suggested-edits/315740

I got a notification that a suggested edit was pending, but by the time I responded, it had been rejected with two incorrect reasons. (The edit neither "changed the meaning" nor was it incorrect.)

I know I can go ahead and edit the post to include the denied contribution, but is there a way to challenge the rejection? The original editor deserves credit for doing something useful,and the rejectors could use a mild scolding, for rejecting something they didn't understand.

|improve this question
  • 3
    Speculating here, but it's possible the reviewers didn't realise it was CW - there's nothing that obviously marks such things in the review tools. – Flexo Jul 13 '12 at 14:50
  • 5
    I would say that changing const to #define changes the meaning. Not that it necessarily was incorrect to do so. – user7116 Jul 13 '12 at 15:06
  • Related: How can I appeal a rejection of a suggested edit? – Dan Dascalescu Nov 4 '12 at 23:56
10

I'll speak up here, since I rejected the edit.

I didn't see the CW part of it in the new Review dialog. It wasn't immediately obvious to me, and I'll likely be proposing/supporting a feature that clearly marks posts as such. (It would also be beneficial to see comments of a question/answer, as edits that are a result of discussion there aren't apparent in the review dialog either.)

I dun goof'd, sorry.

|improve this answer
  • I don't think it is a good edit, especially not for C++ where using const is much better than #define. I would have rejected it too. – Bo Persson Jul 13 '12 at 17:39
6

I know I can go ahead and edit the post to include the denied contribution, but is there a way to challenge the rejection?

No, there isn't.

If this was possible, it would probably cause unnecessary friction every time an edit gets rejected.

The original editor deserves credit for doing something useful[.]

Maybe so, but it would be buried in the revision history anyway. Since the post is CW, there would also be no rep gain.

[T]he rejectors could use a mild scolding, for rejecting something they didn't understand.

I'm not so sure about that.

As you probably know, the "please add definitions as needed" isn't visible from the Suggested Edit interface. In general, I oppose to changing the posters code – wrong or not. Fixing minor errors can be handled in the comments.

|improve this answer
  • 1
    It looked to me that the individual edited the post because they lacked the rep to comment. Most of those code edits should be rejected (my experience has been ~90% are incorrect). – user7116 Jul 13 '12 at 15:05

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