5

Some people rejected an edit that was made to my post.

The very valid reason for that edit was that the links were broken. I would put the edits in myself now, but I want the user who noticed and tried to fix it to get the reputation points.

How can I re-open the review? I'd also like to drop the people who rejected a message that they should actually check edits before rejecting them.

2

You can't re-submit a suggested edit.

It's only 2 points though. Just apply the changes, and if you want to put a comment below your post thanking that user.

The edit was borderline; the user could also have left a comment. Suggested edits are expected to fix multiple issues; fixing two links is not seen as substantial enough by many reviewers.

  • 5
    in this case the system should be changed to “punish” the people who are sloppy reviewers. the fact that three users didn’t check the changed links suggests a flaw in the system. a flaw in the system discourages new users to edit and participate. – flying sheep Mar 9 '13 at 15:38
  • @flyingsheep: Nope, I don't agree. The edit was borderline minor. – Martijn Pieters Mar 9 '13 at 15:40
  • 2
    @flyingsheep In actual fact, this seemingly is not the biggest problem of the review queues. Wrongfully accepted edits seem to be a far bigger problem. – Bart Mar 9 '13 at 15:41
  • 6
    Martijn Pieters: the links broke, man. linking to documentation is vital if you refer to it. fixing 404s is much more useful than fixing capitalization (like you did with my question), and that fact can be discussed. it’s no information → information, and there is nothing more substantial than a change like this. – flying sheep Mar 9 '13 at 15:46
  • 2
    Bart: yeah, likely. but if someone new gets involved and makes an useful edit enhancing/fixing the information content of the question, it’s not debatable that this edit should be approved, and it’s likely that some would be discouraged from making similarly valuable contributions in the future. – flying sheep Mar 9 '13 at 15:48
  • 1
    @flyingsheep I would have approved it. But in terms of punishment, I'll take the mistaken rejection over the wrong acceptances any day. It happens. – Bart Mar 9 '13 at 15:49
  • @Bart i got that. what i didn’t get is what reasons speak against the ability to reopen reviews, pointing out possible misconceptions that lead to the wrongful rejection (or approval) of edits. – flying sheep Mar 9 '13 at 15:52
  • 1
    @flyingsheep Too much hassle. Suggested edit comes in, edit gets reviews. That's what you'll have to make do with. To then again have the ability to review the reviewers seems a bit much. It can always be suggested again, should a user wish to do so. Now, just make the edit yourself. And another OT note, if you wish to reply to me, please use the @ sign. – Bart Mar 9 '13 at 15:53
  • 1
    @flyingsheep: Complexity, the possibility of interminable debate over minutiae, it's only 2 points and the fact that rejected edits are easily recovered all make a review review system unnecessary in my view. Next you'll go to review review reviews, and review review reversions. It'll never stop! – Martijn Pieters Mar 9 '13 at 15:55
  • ok, i accept that. i’m still alienated though, by you thinking it necessary to correct the capitalization of my question, yet arguing that fixing broken documentation links isn’t relevant. that’s a horrible contradiction in my eyes. if anything is a minor edit, then capitalizing 3 words. – flying sheep Mar 9 '13 at 16:02
  • @flyingsheep Agreed. On Stack Exchange, we want objective answers with citations whenever possible. Fixing broken links is NOT minor. – pacoverflow Aug 9 '17 at 21:38
3

A workaround: check the user's questions and answers, find a good one and upvote it.

  • 1
    Good idea, will do that :) – flying sheep Mar 9 '13 at 16:30
1

When deciding whether to accept an edit or not, you seem to feel that the rule is

  • is the changed part better than the old part?

Since a good link is better than a broken link, it's your position that the edit should have been approved. What you're not understanding from the comment conversation is that you are wrong.

The rule is:

  • is the post as a whole sufficiently better now to justify the time spent reviewing the edit?

Say a post has three broken links, and you fix only one. That's not good enough. The edit should be rejected as too minor. Say it has two broken links and some typos or bad grammar, and you fix only the links. Again, not good enough. Those with full edit privileges can go and fix just one aspect should they feel the desire to, but those whose edits must be reviewed are obliged to take care of all that is wrong with the post, or leave it alone.

You don't like that guideline, and think the reviewers were wrong to reject the edit as too minor. Your arguments seem to consist of asserting that the links were broken, and that capitalization is irrelevent. Repeating those statements over and over will change nothing. Suggested edits that are too minor will be rejected. I hope the suggester learns to fix all that is wrong with the post. I hope you end up with a happier understanding of the edit review system.

  • 3
    To put a different spin on the point Kate is trying to make (or at least how I am reading her answer)... if a 2K user goes and fixed the links and nothing more, it is less of an issue than if a <2K user suggests the same edit. Both edits are incomplete and both are frowned upon, but there is one huge difference. The 2K user who makes the edit does not need the time of anyone else to make that edit, whereas the <2K user needs the time of at least 3 people to approve the edit. – psubsee2003 Mar 9 '13 at 17:07
  • 4
    What else could have been improved in the suggested edit in the question? I feel there was nothing else to fix, and I agree with the OP that broken links are very much worth fixing. The comments about using proper capitalization referred to this very Meta question (and other posts), not to the suggested edit. – Arjan Mar 9 '13 at 17:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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