Today, someone proposed an edit to one of my answers. Before I got to see the notification, the edit already was rejected by other people (three rejections, one approval).

But the edit was actually a good one (like most edit proposals to my post I get to see) – a correction of syntax errors, so I would have definitively approved it.

(The suggested edit didn't change the main point of the answer, which was about the API to use, but it made the code example of my answer actually usable. I didn't compile it when writing my answer, it was late at the evening.)

So I did edit my post to include the proposed change, so the proposal is not fully lost. But the proposer only got the negative feedback from the rejection, and none of the reputation bonus an accepted edit gives.

My suggestion: Could there be added a way a post author can accept edits which were already rejected by other users?

Also, is there some way I can contact the rejectors and teach them not to reject good edits?

marked as duplicate by Adam Lear Jul 23 '15 at 3:10

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 2
    correcting syntax errors is not a good edit for other people to suggest. – Kate Gregory Jun 22 '13 at 18:52
  • @KateGregory Why not? Would you rather have the answer being wrong? – Paŭlo Ebermann Jun 22 '13 at 18:54
  • @KateGregory as long it's clear they are introduced by the answerer, they are not deliberate and the fix is definitely correct, why not? – John Dvorak Jun 22 '13 at 18:54
  • 1
    The problem is that reviewers are jumping in too quickly for the author to even have an opportunity to see the edit. That said I wouldn't discount Kate's comment - suggested edits that change the content aren't the most credible. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Jun 22 '13 at 18:55
  • @BoltClock'saUnicorn what do you suggest? What about a grace period where the edit is only visible to the post owner? – John Dvorak Jun 22 '13 at 18:58
  • @Jan Dvorak: That might work if the grace period is kept short. It would also only be really effective on Stack Overflow; nowhere else does the suggested queue come close to being busy. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Jun 22 '13 at 18:59
  • Oh, also, the post author may not always be in the best position to judge an edit - often, they're in the worst. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Jun 22 '13 at 19:01
  • @BoltClock'saUnicorn That grace period would have worked only by chance this time. Most of the time of most days I'm not online in SE to review edits to my posts in time. – Paŭlo Ebermann Jun 22 '13 at 19:02
  • @Paŭlo Ebermann: Yeah, that too... – BoltClock's a Unicorn Jun 22 '13 at 19:02
  • 2
    Then I think the original suggestion should be implemented – John Dvorak Jun 22 '13 at 19:05
  • 1
    Fixing syntax errors via edits is not a good thing. It could well be that by doing so, if the answer to the question is indeed the OP has the syntax wrong, then it's disguised the error, and the answer would be "your syntax is wrong" - otherwise - a wild goose chase ensures. I've seen good intention edits that I've rolled back because the original "problem" would be lost by the edit. I've also seen some edits that changed the question (again in good faith), but a comment asking for further explanation would be better. – Jon Clements Jun 22 '13 at 19:38
  • @JonClements I consent that fixing syntax errors in a question is dubious, but this was an edit to an answer (and obviously the syntax was not the core point of it). The editor also didn't have enough reputation to comment on my answer. – Paŭlo Ebermann Jun 23 '13 at 10:10