I'm a bit puzzled by the rejection of an edit of mine since the reasons given by three out of five peer reviewers seems wrong.

Two of the rejecting peers said "This edit is incorrect or an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post." which is blatantly not true (I only changed code formatting and fixed a couple of typos. The only "semantics" fixes I did were a comma used as a decimal point and a comment not marked as such in the code).

The third rejecting peer gave a possibly relevant reason "This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost.", but still I don't understand how my almost entirely cosmetic fixes could change the meaning or intent of the original post. I did several edits similar to this one which were always accepted. How is this one so different? Am I missing something?

  • 11
    You confused the reviewers; your edits at first glance appear to change the code rather more radically than you actually did. Touch luck, it happens! – Martijn Pieters Sep 13 '13 at 22:12
  • 2
    Yeah, the Markdown diff does look pretty scary. Upon further inspection, however, it does appear to be a valid edit. – Adam Maras Sep 13 '13 at 22:13
  • @MartijnPieters Thanks! This makes sense. Should I have added something more to my edit comment maybe? Is there a way to handle this kind of misunderstanding? – Lorenzo Donati Sep 13 '13 at 22:15
  • 2
    Robo-rejected. I would have used the edit description to describe in detail a little more on what you changed. – David Chen Sep 13 '13 at 22:15
  • @DaveChen Thanks for the advice! Just one thing: I don't think I get the "Robo-rejected" thing. – Lorenzo Donati Sep 13 '13 at 22:18
  • @LorenzoDonati: I don't quite know if a more detailed summary would have helped; perhaps, it wouldn't hurt in any case. – Martijn Pieters Sep 13 '13 at 22:20
  • @LorenzoDonati: Basically means that people rejected without really thinking. – Linuxios Sep 13 '13 at 22:20
  • 1
    The cost of a rejected good edit is not as bad as a bad approved edit. Also, there are no good audits (audits that you need to approve to pass). – David Chen Sep 13 '13 at 22:21
  • @Linuxios Ah! Yes! Robo(t)! I must be very tired (past midnight where I live) :-) – Lorenzo Donati Sep 13 '13 at 22:22
  • @DaveChen I fully agree: accepting bad edits is far worse. But in the case of rejected good edits is it correct to resubmit the edit or is it better to give up? – Lorenzo Donati Sep 13 '13 at 22:26
  • I have brought the question to the people. – Adam Maras Sep 13 '13 at 22:28
  • @MartijnPieters Thanks for the advice. I've always made rather short edit comments because the length of the "edit box" for the comment was a sort of "max length suggestion" in my mind. Since I learn now that lengthier comments are acceptable, I'll try to be a bit more verbose. – Lorenzo Donati Sep 13 '13 at 22:31
  • 7
    Note: Please do not add spaces in between parentheses and words like you did in that edit. That is a stylistic change that not everyone even likes. You can keep that in your own posts, but do not add it to others' posts. I would have rejected the edit just for that. – animuson Sep 13 '13 at 22:34
  • @animuson Thanks for the tip. I sometimes use that style to increase readability, especially when expressions tend to cram together. However I see that someone could get "upset" by that notation. Worth to keep in mind. – Lorenzo Donati Sep 13 '13 at 22:40
  • I once had a formatting suggestion rejected (specifically by Community), only to see that it was improved a bit while no credit was given to me. Things happen. – Jamal Sep 14 '13 at 1:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .