2

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/71558

This was an awesome edit that I, as the post owner, totally agree with.

Why was it rejected?

Rejected 1 hour ago:
BMWurm reviewed this 1 hour ago: Reject
This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.
alexwlchan reviewed this 1 hour ago: Reject
This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.
(less)

Reviewer Stats

    BMWurm has approved 76 edit suggestions and rejected 6 edit suggestions and improved 4 edit suggestions
    alexwlchan has approved 284 edit suggestions and rejected 93 edit suggestions and improved 32 edit suggestions

Editor Stats

    Ivan Kolmychek had 2 edit suggestions approved, and 1 edit suggestion rejected
| |
  • 7
    I think because it's meant as a correction, which may or may not conflict with your intent/thinking, so the reviewers felt it would be better mentioned as a comment first and then edited into the answer by you, if you felt it was correct. – phantom42 Dec 29 '15 at 12:57
  • @phantom42 - this wasn't clear from my Meta, but if you look at the post, I made it crystal clear I wasn't sure ("IIRC") :) – DVK-on-Ahch-To Dec 29 '15 at 13:06
4

While I am not one who participated in the voting that ultimately rejected this comment, I agree with the rationale given:

This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.

An edit of content to that degree is just to large and too far away from the original poster’s intent to simply be an edit. It does not enhance the content but instead completely rewrites the content to a degree it conflicts with what was previously stated. Edit reviewers are simply not the original poster thus we cannot assume anything past what is being reviewed at that moment. I would recommend a comment be made about the proposed edit and then take it from there.

But even if the original poster believes the edit would be helpful, in general, their own personal awareness of a great edit doesn’t change the fact that radical edits should simply be left as a comment when filtered by the filter or anyone else reviewing the edit. This is how the sites here work. If the original poster likes that edit that was rejected, they should feel free to reinstate it themselves; ultimately they will be alerted and can handle it themselves. But I believe—in this case—the community acted properly rejecting the edit.

| |
  • 2
    I believe the OP can approve an edit unilaterally, so their own personal opinion of an edit is important. The only reason this particular edit was rejected was because DVK didn't get there in time. – Rand al'Thor♦ Dec 30 '15 at 1:00
  • 2
    @randal'thor There's no reasonable way to account for that in the edit review system, unless you're suggesting that only OPs be able to review edits to their own posts, which seems like a bad idea for a host of other reasons – Jason Baker Dec 30 '15 at 1:39
  • @JasonBaker Sure, obviously more people than only the OP should be able to review edits. I was just responding to the first part of Jake's last paragraph. – Rand al'Thor♦ Dec 30 '15 at 1:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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