I suggested an edit to this answer which consists of:

  1. Changing W3Schools link to an appropriate W3C one.

  2. Changing JSON's formatting from:

    {"key1" : 0,
     "key2" : "str"}


        "key1": 0,
        "key2": "str"

    as that's how it is usually formatted.

  3. Changing 'javascript' to 'JavaScript'.

Yet the suggestion got rejected for the following reasons:

  1. This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

  2. This edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner.

Can somebody elaborate on these reasons and whether they are legitimate in this case?

closed as off-topic by Wrzlprmft, Deer Hunter, Werner, Anthony Pham, nicael Jan 17 '16 at 18:56

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question pertains only to a specific site in the Stack Exchange Network. Questions on Meta Stack Exchange should pertain to our network or software that drives it as a whole, within the guidelines defined in the help center. You should ask this question on the meta site where your concern originated." – Wrzlprmft, Deer Hunter, Werner, Anthony Pham, nicael
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    I included the link to the suggested edit from your profile. It's helpful to provide it first to avoid making others dig up stuff in the future. – M.A.R. Jan 17 '16 at 16:03
  • You could have preserved the original link (or changed it to the historical version via Web Archive). But then you'd be left with cosmetic changes only. I'd say your edit was correctly rejected on both counts. – Deer Hunter Jan 17 '16 at 16:07
  • Didn't know about the Metas separation. Can the question be moved to the appropriate section please? – DanAlexson90 Jan 17 '16 at 20:07

I do agree with the reason 1 because:

Because just including some line spacing to the brackets in JSON is really unnecessary, and doesn't make it clearer.

I don't really mind the JSON code which doesn't have a separate line for the brackets. So, the edit was unnecessary.

I know that javascript and JavaScript are the same. So again, the edit was unnecessary.

So, I would reject the edits with the reason 1.

However, I don't think your edits would lie in the Reason 2's category.

  • They may be not necessary per se but following standard practices is still a better thing, I believe. And I haven't seen 'javascript' being written outside of URLs. – DanAlexson90 Jan 17 '16 at 16:09
  • 1
    @DanAlexson90 Yeah, those are just best practices for documentation, etc. So, unless and until the edits make the answer clearer to the reader, they aren't needed. In this case, even though the answerer might not be following the best practices, I can still understand and appreciate it. So, I don't think an edit is required there :) – Dawny33 Jan 17 '16 at 17:27
  • 1
    I do think that the W3 link edit is legitimate, but the others are unnecessary! So, if I'm the reviewer, I'd approve and edit – Dawny33 Jan 17 '16 at 17:28
  • @Dawny33 those are different documents with different intent of material. It is as significant as changing a link to one set of documentation to another. The author linked to that material. If one feels that some other material is also helpful - that should be a comment asking the author to incorporate it. – user213963 Jan 18 '16 at 2:19
  • @Dawny33 - So the others are not necessary so why approve the edit, instead of improving the edit, and only doing what is necessary? – Ramhound Jan 18 '16 at 4:26
  • 1
    @MichaelT I don't have the privilege to post comments to answers. I would have rather notified the OP to better use official documentation instead of W3Schools stuff. – DanAlexson90 Jan 18 '16 at 4:32
  • @Ramhound There are two options: You can either approve and edit and reject and edit :) – Dawny33 Jan 18 '16 at 5:12

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