Since software issues commonly exist across numerous versions, when I find a question about the same issue I am experiencing but on a different version, it seems reasonable to note the additional afflicted version(s).

According to the edit help page, a common reason to edit is

...to correct minor mistakes or add addendums / updates as the post ages

Why then are my edits being rejected with this reason?

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.

Furthermore, this reason sounds hostile and is extremely discouraging to me.


  1. https://superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/799494
  2. https://superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/801106

This second example was also rejected because a reviewer believed I was changing the meaning of the question, even though I am certain I was merely clarifying it (and making it much easier to find via tag additions). Are people too hasty to reject stuff because it looks like too big or small of an edit?

  • 2
    I think the first edit is fine (so long as you tested in O2013 and confirmed what you edited in is true). The second edit adds information to a question which wasn’t present. That’s almost always a risky move. If the user had said as much in comments, ie you got the additional detail from his own mouth, that’s fine. But adding stuff that he didn’t is going to her edits rejected. – Dan Bron Oct 25 '18 at 16:13
  • 1
    This question belongs on meta.superuser.com – DavidPostill Oct 25 '18 at 19:49
  • Oh jeeze, I didn't even realize there were sibling meta sites. That's really confusing. So what is the differentiation? The root of my question here is about the policy in the help center, so perhaps meta.stackoverflow.com instead? And can it be moved instead of deleted/recreated? – Elaskanator Oct 25 '18 at 21:34

The first one was too little. The added information is ideal for adding as a comment to an answer and is exactly what comments on answers are for.

The second one was too much - you've added information that the original author of the question didn't specify and didn't need.

Hence the rejections.

| improve this answer | |
  • See my footnote "Are people too hasty to reject stuff because it looks like too big or small of an edit?" Please elaborate on the first one when you say it "is exactly what comments ... are for" The second one elaborates on the mechanism without deviating from the intent (deleting the library without disabling the library feature altogether). – Elaskanator Oct 25 '18 at 16:41
  • 2
    @Elaskanator You added Windows Server to the second question. The original author had no intention about fixing it on windows server. Your edit deviates from author's intention. – Kolappan N Oct 26 '18 at 8:20
  • But it applies to Windows Server 2008, which is basically Windows 7. This is in the spirit of my attempt to note other afflicted software versions. – Elaskanator Oct 26 '18 at 20:30

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