14

In the question What is Kronos Corporation?, the accepted answer states:

In the mainstream 616 Marvel universe, The Kronas Corporation was [...]

This Kronos/Kronas discrepancy is not further addressed in the answer itself, and perhaps understandably created some confusion, with a user in the comments asking for confirmation ("Kronas, surely?"), and the OP insisting that in-game it is definitely Kronos and not Kronas.

Digging in the linked wiki page, I found out that the subject fictional corporation was later rebranded as Kronos Corporation, so I suggested the following edit:

In the mainstream 616 Marvel universe, The Kronas Corporation (later rebranded as Kronos Corporation) was [...]

with the comment:

added rebranded name according to the wiki link, after comments

But my suggested edit was rejected by both reviewers:

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.

Given the discrepancy of a question about Kronos and an answer about Kronas, and the unresolved confusion and ambiguity expressed in the comments, it is hard to see how my suggested edit did not help to make the answer more accurate.

So, any ideas as to why it was rejected? And should it be?

| |
  • 1
    To me it would have been better to add as a comment. – TheLethalCarrot Nov 30 '19 at 11:28
  • 10
    @TheLethalCarrot it was; but comments are not first-class citizens of SE, and can be removed at any time. Arguably such a discrepancy in the spelling should be part of the answer, especially since it addressed an already expressed doubt/confusion. Do you really think that the edit didn't make the answer more accurate? – desertnaut Nov 30 '19 at 11:30
  • 1
    @TheLethalCarrot As one of the rejectors (the only people who can definitively answer "why it was rejected"), would you care to write up an answer? – Rand al'Thor Nov 30 '19 at 19:17
  • @Randal'Thor when I have time to I shall, busy weekend. – TheLethalCarrot Nov 30 '19 at 19:25
  • Note that the answer originally said Kronos and was edited to Kronas after (and presumably because of) the comment. – Alex Nov 30 '19 at 22:54
  • 1
    @Alex true, but how this affects the utility of the edit of the answer in its present form? – desertnaut Nov 30 '19 at 23:00
  • @desertnaut Your post here makes it seem like the answer in its current form created confusion, as shown by the comment. In fact, though, the answer in its current form seems to be the resolution of the confusion. – Alex Nov 30 '19 at 23:04
  • @Alex partially true (2nd comment, by OP, came after the edit), but is it really relevant? The answer did create confusion for me, which is not resolved by viewing the edit history (something that one is arguably not obliged to do). The respondent should arguably resolve this since they took the trouble to edit, but that didn't happen. So I step in and clarify for good; what exactly was wrong or unnecessary with that? 1st reviewer's comment above implies they were not even aware that I had already left a comment when they rejected the edit... – desertnaut Nov 30 '19 at 23:33
  • @Alex all in all, the answer in its current form may have attempted to resolve, but it stopped short, leaving the discrepancy unexplained for the OP and any future viewer. That's exactly why edits are for, right? – desertnaut Nov 30 '19 at 23:41
  • @desertnaut The second comment is from an entirely different user. What happened was that User1 posted an answer with Kronos, User2 said that it should be Kronas, User1 changed it to Kronas, and User3 said that it's really Kronos. I'm not saying that this necessarily has an impact on whether the edit should be rejected or not. – Alex Nov 30 '19 at 23:51
  • @Alex please look closer; your 'User3' is actually the OP ('User0', perhaps?), and not exactly an "entirely different user"; and they only re-affirmed that it is Kronos in-game (leaving an unresolved perhaps re the different spelling) - not a big surprise in itself, since they had already used Kronos in their question. – desertnaut Nov 30 '19 at 23:59
  • @desertnaut By "entirely different user" I meant not the first commenter or the answerer. – Alex Dec 1 '19 at 0:04
  • @Alex OK, but I confess I fail to see how all this discussion is relevant to the question posted; do you think the rejection was justified or not? – desertnaut Dec 1 '19 at 0:06
  • 1
    @desertnaut I probably would have skipped it had I seen it. – Alex Dec 1 '19 at 0:20
3

The starting point for any such discussion is always the community rules and guidelines; everything else comes second, and it must not contradict these written rules.

According to our own SFF help page on editing (practically identical to the general SE one):

Common reasons for edits include:

  • To fix grammar and spelling mistakes
  • To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)
  • To include additional information only found in comments, so all of the information relevant to the post is contained in one place
  • To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages
  • To add related resources or hyperlinks

Furthermore, the SE FAQ on editing states:

Users can edit the questions and answers submitted to the site. This gives the site a wiki feel, and allows the information to constantly evolve and remain up to date.

The revision history of the subject answer in What is Kronos Corporation? reveals that the respondent initially posted an answer about Kronos; challenged by a comment, they edited to Kronas, and understandably so, since back then (May 2016), there was no mention at all of any Kronos in the linked supporting evidence. This left the thread in a rather awkward situation of a question asked about Kronos and an answer provided about Kronas, without further clarifications, but the asking OP was happy and accepted the answer. So far so good.

3.5 years later (November 2019), someone (myself, he/him) stumbles upon the thread and is puzzled and confused with the unresolved discrepancy Kronos/Kronas; looking at the linked evidence as is now, he finds a reference to:

the rebranded Kronos Corporation

(emphasis in the original). He leaves a comment as a first remedy, and proceeds to suggest an edit, from

In the mainstream 616 Marvel universe, The Kronas Corporation was [...]

to

In the mainstream 616 Marvel universe, The Kronas Corporation (later rebranded as Kronos Corporation) was [...]

which (edit) gets rejected, hence the question here.

Given the full context as exposed above, the suggested edit:

  • Added updated info, not available at the time of writing the original answer
  • Moved the relevant info from the comments to the post itself
  • Resolved the discrepancy Kronos/Kronas, and addressed the confusion facing any viewers today
  • Did not change the meaning of the post
  • Did not conflict with the author's intent; on the contrary, it would seem that it resolved the issue in a manner that would be desirable by the author, and it would be the choice of the author themselves, had the updated information been available back then

In short, the suggested edit added value to the post, while being fully compliant with the community rules and guidelines, and without contradicting the author's intent. Hence, its rejection seems unjustified.

| |
2

While I did not reject the edit, and I probably would have skipped it had I seen it in the review queue, there is a potential argument to be made for rejecting it.

Edits are usually meant to clarify some ambiguity in the text of the post, fix spelling and grammar issues, or add links. Edits are generally not for correcting technical inaccuracies. If a post contains an inaccuracy the standard procedure would be to leave a comment explaining the inaccuracy and/or downvote the post.

The line between a technical inaccuracy and a fleeting mistake can be fuzzy and can sometimes be a judgement call. If a post says Luke Skiwalker we can probably assume that it’s just a typo for Luke Skywalker, and edit it accordingly. In other cases it won’t be as obvious.

In this particular case, we can see that it’s not merely a typo or a mistake. The answerer deliberately used Kronas in response to a comment. The answerer apparently felt that this is the correct name. If the answerer is incorrect, or partially incorrect, that can be debated in the comments rather than changing the answerer’s formulation.

That said, if I was to reject such an edit I would use a different reject reason. Instead of choosing that the edit doesn’t add anything, I would choose that it deviates from the author’s intent.

| |
  • 3
    I agree, "conflicting with the author's intent" was probably a better reject reason the more I think about. I generally find that there is some overlap with the reject reasons though so I tend to pick whichever I feel is the best at the time. – TheLethalCarrot Dec 2 '19 at 14:08
  • 1
    Thanks. I understand your argument, but IMO there was not any technical inaccuracy, and the suggested edit served exactly to "clarify some ambiguity in the text". It is a nice answer, and certainly not deserving a downvote (on the contrary, I did upvote it) (1/2). – desertnaut Dec 2 '19 at 14:43
  • Regarding the author's intent, it is here exactly that we must take into account the age of the post, since the clarification "rebranded Kronos Corporation" in the linked wiki was not available at the time of answering (evidence 1, evidence 2); and arguably edits serve as updates, too cc @TheLethalCarrot (2/2) – desertnaut Dec 2 '19 at 14:43
  • @desertnaut By “ambiguity in the text” I mean where it’s unclear what the post is saying. Something like this comment. In this case we know what the post is saying; what’s unclear is whether that is the correct way to say it. – Alex Dec 2 '19 at 19:13
  • I think we have entered mere wordplay by now; appreciate your opinion about what edits are usually meant to be for, but there is a canonical Meta thread on editing, stating that editing "gives the site a wiki feel, and allows the information to constantly evolve and remain up to date". And regarding evolution and keeping up to date, please see my previous comment. – desertnaut Dec 2 '19 at 19:49
  • @desertnaut I don't think that Meta post says that other users should update answers against the intent of the author. It's saying that we have the technical ability to evolve and remain up to date; that ability can still be used within the confines of the author's intent. – Alex Dec 3 '19 at 2:37
  • 2
    Of course not; but it clearly states that editing is much more than mere fixing expression ambiguities and typos, as you state. And the author's intent is just your hypothesis here, please do not treat it as a fact (have already shown that the option was not available at the time of answering). – desertnaut Dec 3 '19 at 9:02
  • 1
    Your post claims that editing is about ambiguities and typos. The OP's quotation of the actual guidelines show that this is incorrect. Another poster actively admits to ignoring the guidelines about what comments are for (and guideline about adding things in the comments to the Answer). Why are you guys so okay with violating the guidelines, and even downvoting the guy who actually quotes them? – trlkly Dec 8 '19 at 18:02
  • @trlkly 1) I can’t speak for “you guys”; I can inly speak for myself. 2) I haven’t downvoted any post relating to this situation. 3) Regarding “editing is about ambiguities and typos”, I am specifically referring to editing other people’s posts. Anyone is free to correct inaccuracies or ipdate information in their own posts. – Alex Dec 8 '19 at 18:16
  • Please read again the guidelines; your premise #3 does not hold, and the quoted guidelines are meant for everyone (subject to a reputation threshold), not only for the post owners. The whole page header reads "Why can people edit my posts?" – desertnaut Dec 9 '19 at 3:00
-1

The short answer for me is that is would have been better as a comment which it also was.

The confusion was generated in the comments about a minor aspect of the answer and it already seemed to be cleared up. A quick look at the linked wiki, added over 3 years ago, shows the name change clearly. You don't need to "dig into" the page, it's quite clear both in the body and in the meta information panel.

On top of that calling it Kronas in the answer was the initial resolution to the first comment.

It's also worth noting that the answer is talking about the Earth-616, main comics continuity, version where it is called Kronas and the question is talking about Lego Marvel Avengers which is in a different universe. So them having slightly different names isn't something out of the ordinary.

And whilst it is only a minor point there is no current confusion that needs clearing up, the whole post was last active over 3 years ago. I'm sure if anyone was still confused in that time they would have worked it out by now. A comment to clear it up, which you did, would help anyone confused in the future.

And yes I know "comments are not first-class citizens of SE" but in practice they don't really get nuked that frequently around SFF. We are even more lax towards joke and basic commentary comments in general than most of SE. Things just aren't as strict round here.

| |
  • 1
    Thanks for taking the time to answer. "Dig up" means that the relevant info is in the last (5th) paragraph of the linked wiki, so not really handy; and the argument "if anyone was still confused in that time they would have worked it out by now" does not hold - I was confused before looking it up and commenting. Even if you consider that it was better as a comment, this does not sound as a valid reason for rejecting en edit which did make the answer more accurate and complete. – desertnaut Dec 2 '19 at 11:39
  • @desertnaut To me dig it up holds the connotation that its more than just open a link and glance at the meta panel. I'm also aware that the time argument isn't very strong, it was only a side/minor point as I stated. And yeah if it is better as a comment, it is better as a comment not an edit as part of an answer so yeah it does make sense to reject it. – TheLethalCarrot Dec 2 '19 at 11:42
  • Interestingly enough, you don't seem to apply the same rationale for your own posts, which you do edit in order to include info from the comments, even if you judge them to be "not too relevant (yeah, I know, it looks nicer, doesn't it?). With all due respect, it seems like double standard to me – desertnaut Dec 2 '19 at 14:50
  • 1
    @desertnaut Not a double standard and it's my own post to do with as I wish. And yeah I added it as a footnote to clear it up because it wasn't relevant to the answer (like here). If it wasn't my own post I would have left a comment. – TheLethalCarrot Dec 2 '19 at 14:53
  • 1
    It very much is a double standard. You are arguing that the reason for rejecting is that the clarification belongs in the comments not the Answer. Yet you are willing to add it to your own Answer. Either such things belong in the Answer or in the comments. You can't say they belong in your Answers but not in other people's Answers. – trlkly Dec 8 '19 at 17:41
  • 2
    Also, the argument "I know the guidelines say one thing, but I say another" is not a good one. The Questioner has the guidelines on their side. Your opinion should not trump them. – trlkly Dec 8 '19 at 17:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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