6

For example, this suggested audit changes the algorithm, and I don't know if the change is valid or not without carefully analysing the algorithm.

I think the original author should decide this. "Accept" can introduce potentially harmful edit, "Reject" can hide easy option (just clicking "Accept") of fixing the post from author's arsenal, requiring more effort to edit the post and therefore reducing probability that it will be fixed.

I see 4 buttons: "Approve", "Reject", "Imrove" and "Skip". A "stong" approve or reject can be carried out by editing the question again after the review outcome. But there's seems to be no "stong" skip (i.e. make it skip for everybody except of the author)...

Improve this question
3

Reject it.

That edit changes the meaning of the code and it should really have been left as a comment so the answer's author can edit it in themselves if they think it's necessary.

If the person who made the suggested edit doesn't add a comment to the post after the edit is rejected, consider adding the comment yourself (if you agree with the edit).

Improve this answer
8
  • Yes, I usually add the comment (often in form of a link to the review case). BTW can author manually apply the such rejected review case if there are no more new edits, like "Why was it rejected? System, apply this patch now".
    – Vi.
    Aug 25 '14 at 21:49
  • @Vi If someone suggests an edit to your post, the author gets a notification about it, so they will see it eventually.
    – MrLore
    Aug 25 '14 at 21:52
  • I though the notification disappear if the edit gets rejected...
    – Vi.
    Aug 25 '14 at 21:57
  • @Vi I'm not sure if the notification shows up as active, but it definitely appears in the notification box.
    – MrLore
    Aug 25 '14 at 21:59
  • 1
    @Vi. The notification stays there if the edit is rejected.
    – AstroCB
    Aug 26 '14 at 4:42
  • 2
    Nonsense. This edit purports to correct a minor mistake, which is one of the valid reasons to edit. If the edit is correct, it should be accepted. If it is incorrect, of course, it should be rejected. Do not reject it if you do not know whether it is correct. Editing is a vital part of Stack Exchange: it's how we can hope to have reliable resources. Typos and other minor mistakes are not set in stone.
    – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'
    Aug 26 '14 at 10:10
  • @Gilles That link actually disagrees with your point: To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning). Changing a wrong answer to be right definitely changes the meaning.
    – MrLore
    Aug 26 '14 at 15:51
  • @MrLore Read a few lines further: “to correct minor mistakes”. You're taking “changing that meaning” to an absurd level. I do agree that this sentence should be amended to “without changing the core meaning” or something like this. But you are supposed to apply common sense: editing is there for a reason — to make answers better.
    – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'
    Aug 26 '14 at 15:59
3

If you don't want to accept, and you don't want to reject, then skip. That's what it's for.

The author will be notified of the suggestion. If the author isn't active, there's a chance that the edit will be rejected even if it's correct, because of reviewers who don't use “skip” when they should (a widespread problem, unfortunately). In this case, it can make sense to mention the edit in a comment, to give it more visibility, so that future visitors who see the answer get the information that someone thought there was a correction to make.

This edit is not intrinsically bad: it purports to correct a minor mistake, which is a good reason to edit. It should be accepted if it does indeed correct a mistake, and rejected if it doesn't. If you don't know which it is, skip.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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