Every now and then an edit will be suggested that introduces both good changes and bad ones, and I'm not sure which of "Improve Edit" or "Reject and Edit" actions is better suited to such a case.

I understand that "Improve Edit" is counted as an accepted edit for the user that suggested the changes, but removing information from an edit is closer to rejecting it than improving it, so "Accepting" such an edit feels misleading and might not give proper feedback to the suggester.

On the other hand, "Rejecting" the edit just to add some of the changes back into the post myself seems unfair to the user that suggested the edit, and it's clear the user cares about the post's quality, though they might have misunderstood some edit guidelines or some information in the post.

What's the better way to handle these situations?

The suggested edit that prompted this question. The first change is bad, the second is good.

Related: could edits be partially approved?


2 Answers 2


You can always post a question on Meta, so that the user who proposed the edit can correct their mistake...

In general, do whatever is the least work for you. If it's easier to start from the current revision, choose Reject and Edit; otherwise, choose Improve and Edit and (unless it's a tag wiki edit like this) you can post a comment reply informing the user about their mistake. They will count as an editor of the post and are thus 'pingable', even though their username won't be autocompleted.


Edits should be limited to adding good and avoid introducing bad.

An edit that is (for example) 90+% excellent (capitalizes, fixes spelling, breaks up a wall of text) and then goes on to change just one word, completely changing the answer being offered (or the question being asked), is a bad edit.

A "bad edit" should receive no reward, the person making such an edit should get the message: "Don't be heavy handed, don't go too far". Rejection is a clear message.

You are not "improving the edit" by (for example) switching that one word back - you are entirely saving the OP's answer or question. People vote (and answer questions) based on what it says, not by reviewing the edit history - it needs to say what the poster means (good or bad, right or wrong).

Once poor grammar and formatting, (lack of clarity), is cleaned up let voting take care of the rest. Acceptance or rejection is the only form of voting allowed on edits, make your efforts count correctly.

By all means you should reject if that's fair, and go back to reintroduce all good changes - and not go too far, obviously don't add back the wrong portion. Then your edit should be accepted because it is correct.

The rejected editor can then make the effort to look at why their edit was rejected and what the reviewer deems the problem to be.

Accepting edits from the pedantic perfectionists whom know not only excellent prose but also decide what the answer or question ought to have been are free to mention that in their own answer, and not ruin someone else's work, prescribe their thoughts to another.

Asking a so called bad question or offering a bad answer is permissible, and voting takes care of that. Don't accept and improve bad edits that ought to have been rejected and repaired. If it's just 'too much effort' or 'too complicated' an option you have is to "skip", and leave it to the voters.

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