As I've only received review privileges today, it's entirely possible I've misunderstood the process, so I'm seeking clarification.

This suggested rollback was rejected by 3 users all stating:

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

Whilst I understand that as a reason to reject an edit, I don't see why this is a valid reason to reject this particular rollback. Long story short, the OP removed the original question, and the code that went along with it, after accepting an answer and replaced it with some ramblings and a very generic question. This essentially stripped the original question of its value, leaving it in a mess.

Am I right in believing this should actually have been approved? If not, would someone mind explaining why?

  • 2
    The rejecters probably did not see it was a rollback. – juergen d Nov 8 '13 at 22:41
  • 1
    @juergend Could be the case, but the editor left a comment there which was easily visible. (I'm visually-impaired too, so they have no excuse. ;-)) – John H Nov 8 '13 at 22:42
  • 6
    @JohnH unfortunately not all reviewers read the edit comment. +1 for you for doing just that. – psubsee2003 Nov 8 '13 at 22:43
  • @psubsee2003 Really? I saw questions on here asking whether or not reviewers could see a comment, but I just assumed it was a feature that was implemented not so long ago. That's a bit disappointing, if what you say is true. – John H Nov 8 '13 at 22:45
  • 6
    @JohnH we need more new reviewers like you – psubsee2003 Nov 8 '13 at 22:45
  • @psubsee2003 That's a shame, but I appreciate the compliment. – John H Nov 8 '13 at 22:46
  • 1
    And it looks like @psubsee2003 rolled it back :) – Dennis Meng Nov 8 '13 at 22:48
  • @DennisMeng Just noticed, good stuff. :) – John H Nov 8 '13 at 22:48
  • 2
    I really hope you get 3k rep soon, we could really use you for the close-queue :) – Simon Forsberg Nov 8 '13 at 22:55
  • @SimonAndréForsberg Wow, I see your point. I'll get working on it. – John H Nov 8 '13 at 22:58
  • 1
    We could use all the people we can get; the queue's gained another 10k or so since I got privs last month. – Dennis Meng Nov 8 '13 at 23:02
  • @DennisMeng Hopefully, it won't take too long, but I'll certainly see if I can help make a dent on that queue once I get there. – John H Nov 8 '13 at 23:04

It seems fine to me. Looking at the question, it looks like the following happened:

  1. User posts question
  2. Someone answers
  3. User doesn't fully understand the answer, and then modifies question to reflect that.

The main thing that you spotted (and the rejecting reviewers evidently didn't see) is that the question asker's edit makes the question almost now look like a follow-up to the answer (rather than a standalone question); you were right to feel that the question is now a mess. You were absolutely right to approve the rollback.

Those reviewers screwed up. It happens, and I hope it doesn't discourage you.

| improve this answer | |
  • It didn't discourage me in the slightest. If anything, it just made me wonder if I was in the wrong, so I wanted to check. Thanks for the answer. – John H Nov 8 '13 at 22:45
  • To be fair, rollback is is radical change - justified or not. It should be done by 2K+ users in my opinion i.e. user with less than 2K better flag as Other, comment or just wait until 2K user do it. – Shadow Wizard Wearing Mask Nov 8 '13 at 23:12
  • @ShaWizDowArd shrug, though I suppose if we as a community decided that rollbacks should be left to the higher rep guys, I'd hope that we at least make that clear to new users. – Dennis Meng Nov 8 '13 at 23:18
  • 1
    @ShaWizDowArd Not really sure I agree. People at the top tier of a community-based system like this will always be the ones who are doing the most work to keep the community running properly. It doesn't make sense to prevent more people from helping those who have the largest burden. – John H Nov 8 '13 at 23:26
  • 1
    @John and Dennis - it's fine to disagree. One more try to explain my point of view: such suggested edit requires the reviewers to go to the question, see the last good revision and make sure the suggested edit is the same, not missing or adding details. That's LOTS of work for one review. And x3 it makes lots of time wasted. If we had "suggested rollbacks" mechanism it would be ideal of course, but until then - I'll probably just skip or reject such edits. – Shadow Wizard Wearing Mask Nov 9 '13 at 0:10
  • @ShaWizDowArd Now I can see your point-of-view. Having checked a couple of suggested rollbacks already within my first 20 reviews, I can see the value of "suggested rollback" functionality. It's a good idea. – John H Nov 9 '13 at 0:20
  • 2
    @ShaWizDowArd This is part of the job of a reviewer. I could understand the rejections if the edit summary had been vague, but here it's clearly spelling out what was going on, and the reviewers should have checked the question history and compared revisions. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Nov 9 '13 at 7:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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