I recently suggested an edit on Stack Overflow. Incidentally, an edit to a question I answered and which has been upvoted and chose as the correct one by the OP.

Since the title is actually not rightly related with what is really asked, I wanted to make it be fully representative. The edit has been rejected.

I wanted to contest it. Which is not possible for comprehensible reasons.

To have an idea of the legitimation of the rejection, I visited each reviewer's profile. And actually, one reviewer has accepted it.

Note that among the four reviewers, he is the one with the highest reputation (I admit nonetheless that this is not an objective signal of reviewing quality), but he is the only one who has relevant top tags regarding my edit.

Why are edit reviews not assigned considering reviewers' top-tags ? Or at least non-uniformly weigthed if one of the reviewers has relevant top-tags ?

I read that there is no reviews assigment process, is this voluntary ?

  • I am curious of this -1. I would be glad to know why. (canceled by someone else 2 minutes later). – keepAlive May 7 '17 at 17:11
  • 1
    Is this the edit in question? The change seems reasonable to me, but I don't think you would need tag experience to judge that "Complex Excel Conditional Formatting" is not a descriptive title and that your suggestion was clearer. – Aurora0001 May 7 '17 at 17:20
  • @Aurora0001. Yes this is the edit in question. – keepAlive May 7 '17 at 17:25
  • 3
    FYI: your -1 (not mine ...) was not canceled, but rather "balanced". – Pierre.Vriens May 7 '17 at 18:27
  • @Pierre.Vriens. This is what I meant by canceled by someone else. But balanced is clearly better. As you surely saw, I am not an english native speaker. – keepAlive May 7 '17 at 18:36
  • 2
    1) The rejections weren't based on reviewers lack of knowledge, but rather, your edit wasn't that important. In the grand scheme of things it may have provided a slightly clearer title but it didn't actually matter. I'm not saying that means you shouldn't have made the edit, I'm saying that when you make edits like that, they're pretty borderline, and that's why you may see them rejected for that reason. 2) Your edit summary only said "improving title". A lot can be gained by providing a stronger justification in your summaries. Use those summaries fully, to communicate to reviewers. – Jason C May 7 '17 at 18:37
  • 1
    @Tnerual merci for the feedback. But no I did not "see" what you're language was (no problem for me). Btw, not sure if you can *see", but I didn't learn English on my mother's knees either ... – Pierre.Vriens May 7 '17 at 18:40
  • 1
    Also, btw, I'm not entirely certain of this, but every suggested edit review I see in the queues, on SO at least, is in one of my top tags. So either people really like making edits in my tags, or the answer in the question you linked to isn't quite right (the other answer on that question implies differently, btw). – Jason C May 7 '17 at 18:41
  • @JasonC. Since you consider that the suggested edit was perhaps critical (the current title does not reflect at all the main point of the OP's question), you may agree with what follows: people who will search (on Google or via SO's search field) for solving a comparable issue will never find it, which is furthermore very likely to lead to duplicates. Which shows that the current reviewing process is in a spontaneous contradiction with itself: when reviewers check for duplicates. – keepAlive May 7 '17 at 20:05
  • 1
    @Tnerual Well, Google search results are based on more than just the question title, it's not much of a factor in this case. However, if your edit was to improve searchability, that would have been a great thing to put in the edit summary comment. :) – Jason C May 7 '17 at 20:40
  • @JasonC. I followed (all) your advices. I re-suggested the edit. It has been accepted. – keepAlive May 8 '17 at 4:48

In both making and reviewing suggested edits, specific tag knowledge should not be relevant. Suggested edits do things like correcting the spelling of ordinary English words, correcting grammar, fixing formatting (numbered lists, code formatting, spoilers, paragraph breaks), bringing pictures inline, and writing a title that is a reasonable summary of the question instead of a vague statement like "compile errors please help urgent".

There are times, especially after a question has been answered and accepted, when a title change relies on a little technical knowledge. That is, the "compile errors please help urgent" question can get a good title just by reading the body of the question, but some others may cry out for a different title once the mystery is solved. The problem with making that change is that people who don't yet know the solution won't be searching with words from the solution; they'll be searching with words from the problem. As a result reviewers are hesitant to accept edits that change the title from "what someone with this problem thinks the problem is" to "what someone who knows the answer thinks the problem is." That's the first strike against your suggestion.

In your particular case, you improved "complex" to "involving multiple cells", and that's good. But you left the "signature" line in place along with "any help would be appreciated" and other "fluff" that should have been removed. That was your second and third strike. I would have rejected your suggestion, too. But more importantly, as you can see from the logic I've just laid out to you, nobody needs to draw on any knowledge of Excel (or any other tag-specific knowledge) to do so.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

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