It's clear that the reviewers didn't understand this suggested edit.
It's a bug-fix. I had to add a comment to make it more than 6 characters though.
What can I do? I tried to edit it a second time as well.
Generally speaking, stay away from fixing bugs in answers with suggested edits. Most reviewers are not in a position to judge the context of your fix, or if the fix is correct.
Instead, comment on the post, and if you feel it's justified, downvote the post because the answer is incorrect.
You could even post your own answer to the question, with your version of the code, and demonstrate why your answer is correct. Then let the voting decide which answer is the better one.
Yes, the edit (at least the first one) was a proper edit and rejecting it was wrong (although not particularly unexpected). Most suggested edits to code are improper; seeing a good one is rather rare. This is proper, but because it's so rare many reviewers just don't look closely enough to realize that this is that rare exception, or are simply unaware that code edits can be appropriate under certain circumstances.
It's clearly just a typo. The text above the code snippet makes it clear that the intention of that post is to disable
extglob, not enable it, and a quick search of the function makes it rather obvious that
-s enables, rather than disables, an option.
The revision note even mentions this specifically, so the reviewers don't even have that as an excuse.
That said, when an edit of yours is rejected you shouldn't just suggest it again, that's not proper. Suggesting the same edit over and over until it's approved is abusing the system. When it was rejected you should have simply left a comment so that the author or another 2k+ rep user could edit the post.
You also need to make sure that if your edit is less than 6 characters that any other changes are good changes. The first edit was okay, the second was not.
I have since applied the proposed change, given that the authors intention was so clear.
Your edit was spot-on and should have been approved. This is an ongoing problem that keeps coming up because a large quantity of reviewers are allergic to effort and use botched heuristics to reject edits and lack of support for anything to solve the problem.
As stated in the Help Center:
Editing is important for keeping questions and answers clear, relevant, and up-to-date. If you are not comfortable with the idea of your contributions being collaboratively edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.
Edits are expected to be substantial and to leave the post better than you found it. Common reasons for edits include:
- To fix grammar and spelling mistakes
- To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)
- To include additional information only found in comments, so all of the information relevant to the post is contained in one place
- To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages
- To add related resources or hyperlinks
Here are just three sample questions in recent history that have had the same issue:
What is even worse is that in your case you did everything right -- you even made a helpful edit comment explaining what the change was for!
People will tell you that you should:
None of these fix the problem. They create a separate problem. If I find a question on google that perfectly matches the issue I am facing, and the top answer doesn't work unless I fix it based on the comments below it, or find a separate answer with the same content and not that syntax error, then there is a problem.
I have seen absolutely no evidence that allowing suggested edits to code is more problematic than allowing suggested edits to grammar or spelling, and yet there seems to be a community consensus that there is some hidden problem here even from the mods.
At the same time, the simple solution of preventing <2k rep users from making edit to code gets heavily downvoted and people tend to agree with.
So we continue getting these sorts of requests from people who not only see what happens to their edits, care enough to question them, and then post a question on meta about it!
The only thing you can do right now is continue to make good edits, continue to get them rejected, and continue posting on meta about them, or to just wait until you have 2000 reputation and then make the exact same changes where
curmudgeons reviewers won't see them.
The former has a chance of at least reminding folks that this is an issue that deserves attention, which the latter is probably the only way of actually correcting these glaring mistakes for future visitors. So I suggest doing both.
I also suggest a bit of sass toward people who suggest that correcting glaring typographical errors is a bad thing.
Note: Sass is probably ill-advised. Still feels good.
It's an open secret that reviewing edits is a way to game the system. All the users with lots of points do this so they can crush new users.