Timeline for Why was my edit rejected?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 10, 2014 at 18:55 | comment | added | MadHatter | It is a reasonable hope, but your choice of language presumes a bias. Note that, whatever else the SE staff may say, they also note that "At the high end of this reputation spectrum there is little difference between users with high reputation and ♦ moderators. That is intentional. We don’t run this site. The community does.". If the community takes a position, the site's owners may not automatically slap them down. | |
| Nov 10, 2014 at 10:06 | comment | added | Flimm | I can only hope that 2000+ rep users on this site follow the guidance of SE staff, for the sake of low-rep users. | |
| Oct 13, 2014 at 9:18 | comment | added | MadHatter | tl;dr: If you want me to approve an edit to an old post, it needs to be a much better and more substantial edit than if the post were first made earlier today. | |
| Oct 13, 2014 at 9:10 | comment | added | MadHatter | See the first point in AndrewB's top-rated answer,above: "Edits bump a topic back to the front page. The longer it's been since an edit, particularly if the Q&A has run its course, the more likely it is that the edit will be rejected.". For my money, if you want to do a grammar fixup, or highlight a link or two, in the first day or two of a post's life, that's brilliant - all clarification helps, and it only bumps the post up a few places on the front page. But if it's from 2009, then I need a much better reason to effectively move the post half a million places up the attention queue. | |
| Oct 13, 2014 at 8:57 | comment | added | Flimm | @MadHatter: How does "too little, too late" cause harm? Just because you want to reject edits that you don't like doesn't mean that they cause harm. | |
| Oct 10, 2014 at 11:37 | comment | added | MadHatter | I, for one, don't like the new list much; it means I'm constantly having to type in the custom box "too little, too late" (ie, given how old the original material was, I'd want to see much more of an improvement than the sub judice edit introduces"). | |
| Oct 8, 2014 at 13:15 | history | answered | Flimm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |