I had got this particular edit in the review queue. When I clicked on the reject button it showed that the edit was already approved. I honestly felt that even though the edit was related to the question description, it was a bit too of much a change(contextually).

Should I rollback this edit or does it seem alright? I wanted to know the thoughts of the community on this edit, before rolling it back. Because if there is a proper justification for such an edit, then I might withhold the rollback as well.

  • 1
    No, looks like valid edit. "rephrased title to better fit body" - from quick look it looks like that's what it is indeed. Personally I would have skipped it as I'm not familiar with those tags but I also won't roll back. – Shadow Keeps Social Distance Dec 2 '13 at 7:40
  • Yes. Old title is shorter and contains all the relevant information. The edited description is an example for "how not to use a title" – Johannes Kuhn Dec 2 '13 at 7:40
  • Aha! A yes and a no, first up. This sure makes things easier for me :( Can both of you try to give a bit more justification for your respective suggestions? I'd would to have some justifications before deciding myself on what to do regarding this edit(and may be, few more in the future). – SudoRahul Dec 2 '13 at 7:45
  • 1
    It's not really important; such edits are in the "gray zone" where the same exact edit can one time be approved and other time be rejected. I'll explain why rollback is not justified in this case. Keep in mind that rollback is whole new edit, another revision and another bump. Unless the edit was really bad there's no point to roll it back. Maybe part of what @JohannesKuhn said is true and old title contained relevant information but I disagree the new title is "how not to use a title". Title should be informative in my opinion, size doesn't always matter. ;) – Shadow Keeps Social Distance Dec 2 '13 at 8:34

The edited title is ever so slightly more descriptive of the situation -- it explains why the question is being asked -- and moves the less-meaningful question words to the less-visible-in-search-results end of the title, making it perhaps more recognizable in those results as a match for the searcher's problem.

It's squarely in "meh" territory, to my mind. I'm not sure I would have approved it, but I think it can stand (or be left up to the question owner to roll back).

| improve this answer | |
  • Agreed to the first part, but regarding the search results thing, it'd have got more hits had the question stayed in the previous form, as most users using Google would end up asking it a search query like this *How to get around maximum CUDA run time*(with or without the question mark). – SudoRahul Dec 2 '13 at 8:00
  • "get around cuda max run time" should still turn up the question, @R.J. Google's smart enough for that. – jscs Dec 2 '13 at 8:03
  • Exactly my point. The previous title would have turned up for the search query you gave too. But would the newer title be in the top 10 hits? I really doubt that, as the question title has been changed substantially. – SudoRahul Dec 2 '13 at 8:06
  • Google's cache of the question should be updated sometime in the next half-hour, so let's see what happens. – jscs Dec 2 '13 at 8:09
  • I don't know how it works from Google's end but the search query returns that question but with the old name and not the new one. Even now. Any idea on that? – SudoRahul Dec 3 '13 at 8:26
  • Yeah, that's surprising. Generally it's super fast. Maybe it's because the question is so old? – jscs Dec 3 '13 at 21:39
  • Just a note, this question is still the top hit for me on "get around cuda max run time": i.stack.imgur.com/OKW2J.png – jscs Dec 8 '13 at 20:28
  • Yeah I noticed that myself a few times and that's why I left the edit as such and accepted your answer too. Guess the rollback wasn't really required, though I'm glad that I could get a few insights regarding such cases. – SudoRahul Dec 9 '13 at 4:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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