Currently, the "Suggested Edits" audits only are edits that should be rejected a vandalism. Why aren't there any that edit code, but are valid edits?

Look at Suggested Edit #1978835. If the reviewer were to look at the edit comment, it would be apparent that the edit was valid. As such, I accepted the edit, but it was subsequently rejected (very quickly) by three other people.

Being a valid edit, I copied the markdown for the edit and pasted it over the question's contents. However, this raised some questions about rejecting edits.

  • Should this edit have been rejected?
  • What should we do if a valid edit is rejected?
  • Can we have some valid edits used as audits?
  • 6
    As far as I can tell, that edit was not actually valid. Edits which change code are very, very rarely acceptable. Code is the OP's job. Also, if you look at the markdown, the editor removed an enormous block of code. Again, that's the OP's job.
    – user206222
    Apr 23, 2013 at 16:21
  • @KnightswhosayNi the comment said that the comments made the removed code irrelevant.
    – Cole Tobin
    Apr 23, 2013 at 16:23
  • I'm not reading from the comments of this question.
    – user206222
    Apr 23, 2013 at 16:25
  • @KnightswhosayNi the edit comment is what I'm referring to...
    – Cole Tobin
    Apr 23, 2013 at 16:26
  • If the edit comment says that the edit rationale is based off question's comments, and the edit doesn't make sense on its own, check the question's comments.
    – user206222
    Apr 23, 2013 at 16:27
  • @KnightswhosayNi ok, well, disregard the edit for now, what about the honeypot?
    – Cole Tobin
    Apr 23, 2013 at 16:29
  • To address that point, there actually are valid edits in audits. They're just not particularly frequent.
    – user206222
    Apr 23, 2013 at 16:30
  • 1
    @KnightswhosayNi I have yet to experience one — and I've reviewed >1000 edits!
    – Cole Tobin
    Apr 23, 2013 at 16:39


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .