I am trying to make an edit to this question:

For this, I have made two attempts to suggest an edit and both the times the edit suggestion got rejected:

The combined score of the above two suggestions is 1 Approval and 6 Rejection votes.

All I change is immaterial bluff which shouldn't be there in the post in the first place. So, how does that change the original meaning or intent of the post?

Could someone with edit privileges make the edit on my behalf if this seems appropriate?

  • 5
    Suggesting the same edit twice is considered rude: please don't do that. – ProgramFOX Oct 26 '13 at 17:57
  • @ProgramFOX: It's considered rude if the edit is inappropriate. Not when the reviewers get it wrong!! – Aditya Oct 26 '13 at 18:00
  • 2
    ...but the reviewers are not wrong. – Doorknob Oct 26 '13 at 18:01
  • 1
    @Doorknob: I might be missing something. Hence, made this meta post. Please post your answer in this regard. – Aditya Oct 26 '13 at 18:02
  • After looking at the edit, it does look fine - everything you removed was too chatty (but also don't suggest it multiple times - it may just keep getting rejected - I'm not really sure about the best course of action). But it was a rather significant edit, so don't expect it to always get approved. Note on the last edit - the title should not end with "in [tag]" - Should questions include "tags" in their titles?. – Dukeling Oct 26 '13 at 18:09
  • 12
    @Aditya It's not a bad edit, it's just that at first look it seems like you are removing too much from the question. The reviewers got it wrong, but it's an easy mistake to make. Don't lose sleep over it, and keep on editing. One thing you could do in the future, is being a bit more descriptive in your edit messages. – yannis Oct 26 '13 at 18:09
  • @ProgramFOX i agree that twice is rude, but how should one know that is rude. – Bala Oct 26 '13 at 18:20

As one of the people who rejected it the second time, I'll give what I was thinking when I reviewed it. Looking back, I'll admit that the edit was more valid than I gave credit for.

Textually, it did look like a lot of the question was being removed, and it looked like one of the things that was being removed was a clarification on the question asker's part. (Removing the part starting with "Final:" does look like the right thing to do.)

So, it boiled down to me seeing an edit with message "removing unnecessary information" that also removed a clarification. That by itself sounds like something that could change the meaning of the post, as what if the clarification was important? (judging from the question, it certainly was to the asker).

What I didn't see was that what the edit itself did was remove the part starting with "Final:" and condense the original post and "clarification" into something that made an effort to state clearly what the original poster was asking. You could blame it on me reviewing too fast, and you'd probably be right.

Had the edit summary been something along the lines of "removed unnecessary ending and combined "Edit" section into original post", I would have given the edit much more thought. I'm not sure if I would have approved it then, but also not sure if I would have rejected it. More likely I would have skipped it and let people like Dukeling and Yannis make the judgment call.

  • Looking at the comments, it looks like Yannis nailed it on the head. – Dennis Meng Oct 26 '13 at 18:43

The edit itself was good and valid, and the reviewers do need to take much of the blame for not being thorough enough to see what was actually being changed, but I think you need to take some of the blame yourself.

I think the key to the rejection was your edit description was vague.

Your description for both edits was

removed unnecessary information

This tells me very little. Sure it says what you did in a very general sense but neither why you were removing it nor why it was unnecessary info.

Normally you can get away with vague and/or general descriptions because the context of the edit speak for itself, but any time you make a significant change to the post and your don't provide any really description for the edit, you run the risk of getting rejected.

Editors should be taking 20-30 seconds per post, especially one that changes as much as this one, to see what was done, and even clicking through to see the entire post and all of its answers/comments, but often they don't. Some reviewers are just impatient and are looking at quantity as much as quality, some are trying to get through the reviews before the robo-reviewers get to them (not realizing that they are close to becoming robo-reviewers themselves), and many just want to make their vote count (taking more than a few seconds means that someone might come in and approve it before they can reject it).

Since this is occurring, this is why you should try to take an extra few seconds to provide some more detail in the edit description to make it more obvious to the reviewer. Something like:

Removed information pertaining to an answer and excess commentary added by the OP that is just noise

would have been more clear what you were trying to remove and why.

You must log in to answer this question.

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