23

I suggested an edit to an answer that completely lacked any punctuation marks (save for two commas), with sentences just chained together without any separation whatsoever:

Strategema is not a no win situation to be fair technically neither is the Maru, it is a competitive game of some sort while the game is never explained in depth the visuals make it look a little like go with territory control being key however it also appears to be played in real time and it appears that each finger controls some kind of input Data concludes that he is damaged because as an Android his reflexes, visual acuity and mental acuity should be superior to any biological entity

Basically Data has an existential crisis when one of his core beliefs is proven wrong

The suggested edit:

Strategema is not a no-win situation and, to be fair, technically neither is the Maru. Strategema is a competitive game of some sort. While the game is never explained in depth, the visuals make it look a little like Go with territory control being key; however it also appears to be played in real time and it appears that each finger controls some kind of input. Data concludes that he is damaged because as an android his reflexes, visual acuity and mental acuity should be superior to any biological entity.

Basically Data has an existential crisis when one of his core beliefs is proven wrong.

with punctuation marks, sentence separation, and the first letter of the word 'Go' capitalized, to clarify that it is the game (and not the verb).

As it happens, both reviewers rejected the edit with the same rationale:

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.

I would really like to hear opinions here - isn't the edited text much easier to read than the first one? Or was it a bad suggestion?

21
  • 3
    Hmm. Just commenting because I didn't review, but I probably would have accepted the edit just for clarifying the antecedent of the "it" following the first comma. (Normal grammatical rules would suggest its antecedent should be "the Maru," which is obviously incorrect.)
    – DavidW
    Commented Dec 20, 2019 at 22:30
  • @DavidW indeed (among other things)
    – desertnaut
    Commented Dec 20, 2019 at 22:31
  • 4
    FWIW, I wouldn't read too much into the specific message; it's one of only 4 or so canned responses, and the only one that is remotely applicable. You're not causing harm, not applying inappropriate tags and not attempting to reply.
    – DavidW
    Commented Dec 20, 2019 at 22:32
  • 1
    @DavidW thanks, Appreciate the reassurance, but it would seem that I cause harm to my time, suggesting such useless edits :(
    – desertnaut
    Commented Dec 20, 2019 at 22:37
  • 20
    That looks like a good edit to me. I have no idea why anyone would reject it.
    – Null Mod
    Commented Dec 20, 2019 at 23:11
  • 1
    Mistake on my part here, I saw the tags and missed it was an answer somehow and cos you didn’t fix the tags I rejected as it wasn’t a complete edit. Sorry about that.
    – TheLethalCarrot Mod
    Commented Dec 21, 2019 at 10:40
  • 13
    @TheLethalCarrot OK, added as a suggested edit; arguably, it would be more productive if you had attempted to improve the edit yourself, instead of rejecting it (that way, you would have discovered that it was about the answer, and not the question).
    – desertnaut
    Commented Dec 21, 2019 at 11:39
  • 14
    @TheLethalCarrot That's not a reason to reject an edit. If someone is making an edit which is good (improves the post) but not complete (doesn't improve every possible thing which could be improved), that's what the "Improve Edit" button is for, not the "Reject" button.
    – Rand al'Thor Mod
    Commented Dec 21, 2019 at 19:17
  • 2
    @TheLethalCarrot please leave "it depends" arguments for general discussions, where they certainly have a place; here we are talking for a specific edit, and your equally specific rationale for rejecting it.
    – desertnaut
    Commented Dec 21, 2019 at 21:44
  • 2
    @TheLethalCarrot Did you miss that the person telling you how you are supposed to vote has a diamond by their name? A mod is telling you that you did it wrong.
    – trlkly
    Commented Dec 22, 2019 at 4:51
  • 2
    @trlkly I’ve admitted I was at fault and explained why I did what I did. I’m also not going to roll over just because a mod says something. We all know mods are not 100% perfect and neither am I. I’ve said I was sorry for rejecting it, I don’t see much point in piling on to be honest.
    – TheLethalCarrot Mod
    Commented Dec 22, 2019 at 9:01
  • 3
    @TheLethalCarrot Piling on is arguably not the correct description here, since your explanation obviously created a new issue. "Sorry, I was wrong" would be perfectly fine; "sorry, I thought it was a question, so given that I rightfully rejected it cos it was not complete", is another story, and not much of an admission of fault actually.
    – desertnaut
    Commented Dec 22, 2019 at 10:55
  • 2
    I said sorry and explained why I did what I did. If you’d rather I just said sorry with no explanation then I don’t see the point in the meta.
    – TheLethalCarrot Mod
    Commented Dec 22, 2019 at 11:20
  • 1
    @elemtilas although formally you are right (not a proper name indeed), it would seem that in practice (popular press articles, Wikipedia, scientific literature) it is very often capitalized.
    – desertnaut
    Commented Dec 22, 2019 at 22:51
  • 1
    @elemtilas as already said, I have referenced what is often the case, not what is right (and not sure if Nature can be considered "press", in the sense that you seem to mean here). Leaving it alone is of course always an option.
    – desertnaut
    Commented Dec 23, 2019 at 0:05

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
20

The consensus in the discussion seems clear in that the suggested edit improved the post, hence it should have not be rejected.

One of the reviewers was kind enough to offer their explanation for rejecting the edit: they mistakenly thought that the post was a question, and not an answer; given that, their rationale was to reject the edit because it was not complete (i.e. it didn't address an additional tag issue). Nevertheless

That's not a reason to reject an edit. If someone is making an edit which is good (improves the post) but not complete (doesn't improve every possible thing which could be improved), that's what the "Improve Edit" button is for, not the "Reject" button.

as convincingly argued by a moderator in the comments above.

You must log in to answer this question.

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