I don't get this at all. I'm trying to do as much good as I can, but even so little gets rejected by the users who are in full power to allow that edit. And by rejected I mean not just pressing "this is a bad edit" button, but also not allowing it.

Sure, title-only (or code-block, or tag-only, you name it) edits do not address multiple issues in a post (duh) because they're title-only. What I don't understand is why not allow them nonetheless? Even if it earns me one more bad suggested edit point, the question still becomes better. I think this is an issue of review policy.

  • 1
    You're referring to this and this, I assume. Oct 28 '13 at 4:59
  • You are correct. The excel question seems fine apart from its title, but the other one I guess will be earning tumbleweed badge to its OP. Oct 28 '13 at 4:59
  • 1
    My problem with these two questions is that at least 3 people with enough power to make instant edits have looked at the suggested edit, rejected it as unsubstantial, and the questions still have bad titles. I thought it was about making things better, not bureaucracy. Oct 28 '13 at 5:05
  • 3
    You're right; the correct action is improve and reject, not reject entirely. Mostly, I guess, it's a matter of laziness. Not much volunteer work would get done if we held everyone to the highest possible standard.
    – user206222
    Oct 28 '13 at 5:05
  • @Emrakul: Just what I was thinking. Now that the question is known, go ahead and fix it instantly.
    – Jamal
    Oct 28 '13 at 5:08
  • @MichaelPetrotta the less the edit − the less review time is required though. Oct 28 '13 at 5:08
  • 12
    The reasons for rejecting minor edits have been discussed to death. Do some research before asking questions. Among several other reasons, you're consuming quite a lot of other people's time by suggesting an edit. The edits ought to be valuable enough to be worth that time. As for them not improving your proposed edit and actually cleaning up the posts, while that's nice, and encouraged, they are by no means obligated to do so. If you feel that those posts should be improved go actually improve them. If the reviewers are spending more time than the editors you're not doing your job.
    – Servy
    Oct 28 '13 at 5:20
  • Alright, then I'll just patiently wait until the day I get 2000 rep, since I can't make some questions substantially better per suggested edit. I just wonder if those two questions will finally get their titles edited. Oct 28 '13 at 5:23
  • 8
    @user1306322 If the only value that you can add to posts like that is removing the tags from the title you're not even helping as a 2k rep user. If you want to edit posts then actually edit posts and really improve them. If you cannot or will not do that then maybe editing isn't for you, that's fine, if you want to contribute through answering questions instead, then do that. At the end of the day there are certainly better ways for you to spend your time than just removing tags from titles. It's simply not a big deal.
    – Servy
    Oct 28 '13 at 5:26
  • @Servy I've been thinking just that for some time now. Perhaps there are better things for me to do. Oct 28 '13 at 5:27
  • Also, thanks, guys! You are, as always, most helpful here on meta. Oct 28 '13 at 5:37

I'm not sure what you mean by your distinction between pressing "this is a bad edit" button and also not allowing it. A reviewer has only three options: approving an edit, rejecting it (pressing the "bad edit" button, I guess), or improving it with a further edit. But.

I'm struggling with how to respond to this. Let me just ask it this way: what's the point of your edits? How, exactly, have you improved the posts? I mean, I get it, we have an article Should questions include “tags” in their titles?, but the top-voted answer there focuses on how to title questions when you're writing them. What you've done is remove information from the title. "Backout queue not working". What does that mean?

Old Pro, in their answer on that question, makes the same point.

This specific example of [question title] in [tag] is more controversial. I feel strongly (and apparently Jeff Atwood agrees) that even if the question is thoroughly tagged, the title

How do I pass a reference as an argument?

is ridiculously vague.

How do I pass a reference as an argument in [tag]?

is going to be much more helpful when "[tag]" is one of "PHP", "Python", or "bash".

If you had changed the title to something like "Why is the backout queue not working in WebSphere MQ?", that would have been awesome.

  • >What you've done is remove information from the title I removed the tag that is always right there next to the title. In cases when it's not, it's the "Related" questions sidebar with questions from the tags you're currently in, and so you'd understand the meaning anyway. Oct 28 '13 at 5:19
  • 7
    @user1306322 Which wouldn't be a bad thing to do as a part of a comprehensive edit of the post that makes substantial improvements. When it's by itself, it's not really an edit that adds value.
    – Servy
    Oct 28 '13 at 5:21
  • 2
    98% sure the asker meant to click 'Improve' and uncheck the 'this edit was helpful' box before submitting. Allows you to make the change while not giving credit to the person suggesting it. Not suggesting this is appropriate, just trying to clarify my understanding of what he/she said.
    – jmac
    Oct 28 '13 at 5:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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