Return to Answer

deleted 23 characters in body

Source Link

edited Nov 9, 2014 at 3:22

Everything stated in the other answers can be summarized as:

(primary) The edit was controversial at best and a degradation at worst. This alone is enough of a reason.
The edit was to an old and high-rated answer. So, it must be on par with its perceived quality (which is proportional to both these parameters) which it isn't.
As a suggested edit, itIt requires the site's reviewers to invest some time. As they're mostly professionals, they generally wish the edit to be worth their time (to avoid attracting ever more "unworthy" ones and be spending ever more time on them).
This actually means to have big enough value/time to review ratio. So, you can
- increase its contributive value (make it more "substantial"), and/or
- make the improvement more obvious (by any means, including edit summary) to decrease the time required for a "passer-by" to understand:
  1. the essence of the change, and
  2. how it serves the purpose of the original post.
Note, however, that you cannot decrease the time beyond what is spent on bringing up the review screen and taking a glimpse of it.

Everything stated in the other answers can be summarized as:

(primary) The edit was controversial at best and a degradation at worst. This alone is enough of a reason.
The edit was to an old and high-rated answer. So, it must be on par with its perceived quality (which is proportional to both these parameters) which it isn't.
As a suggested edit, it requires the site's reviewers to invest some time. As they're mostly professionals, they generally wish the edit to be worth their time (to avoid attracting ever more "unworthy" ones and be spending ever more time on them).
This actually means to have big enough value/time to review ratio. So, you can
- increase its contributive value (make it more "substantial"), and/or
- make the improvement more obvious (by any means, including edit summary) to decrease the time required for a "passer-by" to understand:
  1. the essence of the change, and
  2. how it serves the purpose of the original post.
Note, however, that you cannot decrease the time beyond what is spent on bringing up the review screen and taking a glimpse of it.

Everything stated in the other answers can be summarized as:

(primary) The edit was controversial at best and a degradation at worst. This alone is enough of a reason.
The edit was to an old and high-rated answer. So, it must be on par with its perceived quality (which is proportional to both these parameters) which it isn't.
It requires the site's reviewers to invest some time. As they're mostly professionals, they generally wish the edit to be worth their time (to avoid attracting ever more "unworthy" ones and be spending ever more time on them).
This actually means to have big enough value/time to review ratio. So, you can
- increase its contributive value (make it more "substantial"), and/or
- make the improvement more obvious (by any means, including edit summary) to decrease the time required for a "passer-by" to understand:
  1. the essence of the change, and
  2. how it serves the purpose of the original post.
Note, however, that you cannot decrease the time beyond what is spent on bringing up the review screen and taking a glimpse of it.

Source Link

created Nov 9, 2014 at 3:13

Everything stated in the other answers can be summarized as:

(primary) The edit was controversial at best and a degradation at worst. This alone is enough of a reason.
The edit was to an old and high-rated answer. So, it must be on par with its perceived quality (which is proportional to both these parameters) which it isn't.
As a suggested edit, it requires the site's reviewers to invest some time. As they're mostly professionals, they generally wish the edit to be worth their time (to avoid attracting ever more "unworthy" ones and be spending ever more time on them).
This actually means to have big enough value/time to review ratio. So, you can
- increase its contributive value (make it more "substantial"), and/or
- make the improvement more obvious (by any means, including edit summary) to decrease the time required for a "passer-by" to understand:
  1. the essence of the change, and
  2. how it serves the purpose of the original post.
Note, however, that you cannot decrease the time beyond what is spent on bringing up the review screen and taking a glimpse of it.