5

I suggested this edit, and it was rejected for two reasons:

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

and

This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost.`

Is that title acceptable on Stack Overflow and why is the edit an attempt to reply to or comment on the post?

Improve this question
0

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
17

I don't think the original title was the worst part of the post:

Essentials C# framework 3.5 book from Mark Michaelis, errors in code from the book

And I especially don't think your title change was good:

Error using List

In fact, I think the suggested title made the post worse as it said nothing about the actual issue.

If I clicked a question with the title you proposed (if I even opened it because it doesn't sound interesting), I would have expected someone actually getting an error related to using a list and not because of a method missing a return value.

So in this case both of the reject reasons you received are valid (emphasis mine)

  • "This edit is incorrect or an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post."
  • This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost.

But had you not touched the title, the "Too Minor" reject reason might have come into play since you left a lot of issues as Aaron has identified.

Improve this answer
4
  • I guess that was my major mistake
    – Walker
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 14:02
  • 2
    And "changes too much" fits fairly well to reject this.
    – sth
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 14:07
  • 1
    @PreciousTijesunimi Aaron's answer is also very important. When suggesting edits, fix everything, don't just pick and choose, but it was the title change that made it "Incorrect" and "Changes too much"
    – psubsee2003
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 14:08
  • In fact, when I clicked on the review link, I hadn't even noticed the title had been changed; I focused on the changes that were made to the body (and more importantly the ones that weren't).
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 15:20
12

You changed a title from something that actually tells me a fair bit about the post to something that tells me almost nothing about the post. It's quite a bit worse than the previous one, which makes both rejection reasons entirely justified.

Your new title doesn't even make sense. There is no List in his code for him to have problems with. In addition to being very vague and unhelpful, it's not even accurate.

As Aaron has said, you also didn't improve as much as I'd like to see in the body of the post, but that's less of a problem than making a title dramatically worse.

I have edited the post myself. You can take a look at it to see all of the problems with the post that you didn't address, and how I've shortened the title a bit without removing helpful information from it.

Improve this answer
8

Well, you made a few grammatical corrections, but you didn't fix some other obvious ones, e.g.

Im new
havent putt
i will be happy

You also could have put the error message in a blockquote:

'xxxx.ConsoleListControl.DisplayHeader(string[])': not all code path returns a value.

Suggested edits are often rejected if they don't fix everything in the post...

Improve this answer
11
  • 3
    While I agree; thats opposite to the reject reasons chosen which are of the "too much" flavour
    – Richard Tingle
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 13:53
  • Oh ok but these are not the reasons why the edit was rejected
    – Walker
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 13:54
  • 3
    @PreciousTijesunimi: Some people pick the wrong reject reason, unfortunately. (Although the title might have had something to do with it, too.)
    – Ry-
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 13:54
  • 4
    Rejection reason was wrong. Rejection itself was just.
    – Mołot
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 13:55
  • @minitech I guess so.
    – Walker
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 13:55
  • 2
    I was thinking people might have been upset about the major title change
    – Richard Tingle
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 13:57
  • @minitech Is that type of title accepted in stack overflow?
    – Walker
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 13:59
  • @RichardTingle may be, may be, but at the same time old title contains a lot of simply unneeded data
    – Mołot
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 13:59
  • 3
    @Mołot The title could be improved sure, but this edit didn't improve it. If it shortened a bit without reducing its value then it could be fine.
    – Servy
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 14:02
  • 1
    @PreciousTijesunimi the title you changed it to was far too terse to be useful.
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 14:06
  • 1
    @AaronBertrand And also just wrong, not just too short, which is far worse.
    – Servy
    Commented Sep 27, 2013 at 14:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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