This edit to my answer was nice and added example code. It improved the answer. Somehow four reviewers have rejected it! I have since manually added the code to the answer, but the reviews were IMHO ridiculous.

Could the moderators remove any black marks the editor (also asker of the question) got for this incorrectly rejected edit?

  • 3
    Alas code suggested edits are almost always rejected as the reviewers can't know its what you intended. Theres a feature request for this though; allow-the-owner-of-a-post-to-approve-a-suggested-edit-even-if-it-was-rejected-by – Richard Tingle Sep 26 '13 at 13:39
  • Well, I'm the author of the answer, I can always edit it back as I'm notified about those edits, right? – Reinstate Monica Sep 26 '13 at 13:40
  • 2
    If a reviewer lacks subject matter knowledge to know whether the code is relevant to the question and the answer, they should just skip it! I often skip reviews where I don't know enough to be sure. – Reinstate Monica Sep 26 '13 at 13:41
  • This still makes no sense to me :( – Reinstate Monica Sep 26 '13 at 13:42
  • 1
    Just for a bit of information the author of the edit was the OP that asked the question. – Marc-Andre Sep 26 '13 at 13:42
  • @Marc-Andre: which was not visible during the review. – user7116 Sep 26 '13 at 13:46
  • @user7116 I know, I just find that it is important to this discussion. Since I did not find the information in the question, I add it here. – Marc-Andre Sep 26 '13 at 13:47

The idea of answers is for there to be several of them which are voted upon, by interjecting another answer into yours (even if it is better) the voting system is being subverted. If the editor has a (in their mind) better answer they should post it separately and let the voters decide. Even if it I am a subject level expert it is not for me to decide that this new answer from a completely new person deserves the existing votes.

As it is impossible to say if the OP of the answer intended the additional code to be in their answer it is always rejected. There is a feature request to allow retrospective approval that you may wish to support.

  • It wasn't "another" answer, it was merely code added to illustrate the prose in my answer. It was as if the answer was a wiki, but I didn't mark it as such yet. – Reinstate Monica Sep 26 '13 at 16:34
  • @kuba had you marked it as a wiki there would be no problem, as you hadn't the reviewers defended your rights to (limited) creative control of your question – Richard Tingle Sep 26 '13 at 16:36
  • OK, we definitely need a way to manually approve rejected edits to our own answers, then. I've upvoted the feature request. – Reinstate Monica Sep 26 '13 at 16:40
  • @KubaOber And found me arguing almost the opposite way in an answer to that question. I'm weird like that – Richard Tingle Sep 26 '13 at 16:42
  • @KubaOber: you don't have to mark your answer as a wiki to allow others to edit it. The edit button is clearly there for all types of answers. The OP simply ran afoul of using code in an edit, which is a huge faux pas. The correct approach is to add their edit back if it works for you (99 of 100 code edits do not apply, hence the byzantine rejection). – user7116 Sep 26 '13 at 16:56
  • @user7116 However the rules of editing are different between a community wiki and a normal post – Richard Tingle Sep 26 '13 at 16:57
  • @RichardTingle: you cannot materially change a CW post. The rules really are not that different. – user7116 Sep 26 '13 at 16:58
  • 1
    @user7116: Is adding relevant code a material change to a post? To me it's an incremental improvement! – Reinstate Monica Sep 26 '13 at 17:07
  • @user7116 From the FAQ on community wikis "They make the post easier to edit and maintain by a wider group of users". and "continually evolving source of good information" Sounds like different rules to me – Richard Tingle Sep 26 '13 at 17:10
  • @RichardTingle: a code only answer is not an answer. – user7116 Sep 26 '13 at 17:16

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