4

This question already has an answer here:

I edited the only answer to a question I asked, and the edit was rejected.

Question

Suggested Edit

It seems like a very fair edit to me. The guy has the right answer in there, and should get credit for it, but to find the right answer, you have to dig to the bottom.

He also answers several questions I did not ask when I specifically stated in my question I did not ask. This leads to confusion for folks finding this question later.

I tried to clarify by moving the correct portion of his answer to the top and marking the rest as "Background Information". The diff tool makes it seem like a lot has changed, but it's mainly moving the answer to the top. I wonder if the rejection was from a quick glance instead of an actual read.

I want to accept his answer, but can't in its current form, as it muddies the waters around GPS to UTC leap seconds vs Unix epoch to GPS epoch.

Is there a rejection review process?

marked as duplicate by ben is uǝq backwards, ChrisF Dec 14 '13 at 12:36

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 3
    For what it's worth, I'd say your edit was borderline but legit. Chances are the reviewers did not see the move, or did not have enough time to double-check you didn't change or remove anything in the process. – Frédéric Hamidi Dec 13 '13 at 21:32
  • 4
    @psubsee2003 I don't exactly consider moving the code snippet from the bottom to the top of the answer to be a particularly significant change. As the OP said, the diff tool just makes it look more significant than it really is. – Servy Dec 13 '13 at 21:39
  • 4
    I'm a bit surprised that you would make accepting the answer depend on the order in which the information is presented, though that's certainly your prerogative. It seems to me that the answerer is shoring up his case logically before hitting you with the actual code, which seems sensible to me. – Robert Harvey Dec 13 '13 at 22:07
  • One possibility, now that the suggestion exists and is linkable, would be to leave a comment below the answer explaining that you think it's more useful that way. The answerer can take a look and maybe rearrange things a bit. That would all be a manual process, though -- not quite what you're asking about. – Josh Caswell Dec 13 '13 at 22:21
  • @TheGrinch Good point. The only reason to need the answer first is he goes off on something tangential to what was asked. It makes it more confusing is all. My question explicitly said something like: "I know how to deal with GPS time to UTC time leap seconds post 1980... I need to know for sure which of these two answers is the right offset from Unix epoch to GPS epoch" which is a VERY different question from "how to I convert a post 1980 GPS time to UTC time?" It is confusing and so many resources out there are unclear, I wanted the actual answer to the actual question first. That's all. :-) – kmort Dec 14 '13 at 1:26
  • @JoshCaswell Good point. I think I'll do just that. – kmort Dec 14 '13 at 1:26
  • 2
    If you had done this to my answer I would have rolled your edit back. I really dislike code-only answers to questions and by making the explanation of the answer "background" you're insinuating the code is all you're interested in. The explanation is, if anything, more important than the code, it's the way you can learn more and it's the reason why the answer may not be completely useless in the future. – ben is uǝq backwards Dec 14 '13 at 8:25
  • 1
    @benisuǝqbackwards The answer pontificates on a question I did not ask, then answers the question I did. The two are not connected. Yes, they do both have something to do with GPS time, but it's not salient to the question I asked. My question was specifically about when GPS time began with respect to Unix time. I specifically asked to not have any information about GPS Time to UTC after the GPS epoch. Folks not intimately familiar with this sort of thing could very likely be confused by this. Simply trying to help future googlers. – kmort Dec 14 '13 at 14:38
2

Is there a rejection review process?

No. You can post on meta, as you did, but even if it is conclusively decided that the opposite action should be taken, there really isn't anything to do about it. You can manually go back in an either remake, or roll back, the edit, but that'd be it.

There are of course actions that can be taken if a reviewer is repeatedly ignoring/violating review guidelines, but a single (especially debatable) review wouldn't result in such an action.

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