I recently had proposed an edit which was rejected, and I'm looking for a bit more information.
The edit was on this question: Why does appendTo() and insertAfter() change font size?

I added some HTML code from the provided fiddle (the OP had included the js, but not the html), and generally tried to clean up the formatting of the question.

I got two approvals to start, and then three rejections in a row, all claiming that

This edit is incorrect or an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post.

Was my edit correctly rejected? What was wrong with it?

  • 1
    Suggestions that are basically a wall of green text are, generally, hard to get approved even if they are correct. Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 4:25
  • @JanDvorak So in this case, I should just hurry up and hit 2k so I don't have to worry about it?
    – jcsanyi
    Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 4:27
  • 1
    Yep. Get 2k and you'll no longer have to worry about bad reviews. Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 4:28
  • That edit did on the whole improve the post, but there was a lot of unnecessary rephrasing that some of the reviewers might have picked up on.
    – user200500
    Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 4:45
  • Rejected the second time through, too. Rather unfortunate. (I tried to approve, but was too late.)
    – icktoofay
    Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 4:57
  • @icktoofay Yeah, I tried Yannis's suggestion of making it more obvious in the description that it's the OP's code. It didn't seem to work though. I think the question's staying as-is for now. :)
    – jcsanyi
    Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 4:58
  • I didn't include that in my answer because it's more speculation than fact, but the past few months there have been a lot of issues with what we came to call "robo reviewers". I'm guessing people aware of those issues are far more less inclined to click "approve" when it's not immediately obvious that the edit should be approved. In any case, it's not really something to worry about and I'd hope it won't discourage you from editing. You are very close to 2K, where all those problems will go away automagically.
    – yannis
    Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 5:26

1 Answer 1


It's an incorrect rejection, but also an easy mistake to make. It's not immediately obvious that the code you are adding is not your own, and you just moved it from the OP's fiddle to the question text (which is a good thing).

I would hope that reviewers would pay a bit more attention to edits, but... it's always better when the mistake is rejecting a correct edit. Accepting an incorrect edit is much more painful.

One thing you might want to try is being a bit more explicit on your edit descriptions:

Added code from the OP's fiddle, and edited the question for readability

Obviously I have no idea of knowing if adding "the OP's" would have helped, but it's worth a try.

On the bright side, two people approved the edit.

  • "It's not immediately obvious" -- but it's in the edit description! Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 4:31
  • 1
    2 people - including Radim Köhler, which I considered an accomplishment, considering his stats.
    – jcsanyi
    Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 4:32
  • 1
    @JanDvorak I know, still I had to look at it twice. Therefore it's not immediately obvious, at least to me.
    – yannis
    Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 4:34
  • 1
    Yep, on first glance it looks like an audit, adding what appears to be random sentences. Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 6:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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