6

My suggested edit fixed the spelling of should and then, and also clarified some awkward phrasing. Is there a reason for the rejection?

4
  • The reject reason is shown, but I can't tell you why the moderator chose that reason.
    – Michael Hampton Mod
    Commented Dec 12, 2018 at 17:56
  • 1
    It would be more helpful if you answered questions rather than just fiddling. So many questions go unanswered now that any answer you can provide would be a bonus.
    – user9517
    Commented Dec 20, 2018 at 21:44
  • 1
    I do what I can, @Iain, which isn't much. I'm not a sysadmin.
    – TRiG
    Commented Dec 21, 2018 at 11:38
  • 1
    Almost no one here is a sysadmin that's a big part of the issue.
    – user9517
    Commented Dec 21, 2018 at 13:30

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Oh, look, one of mine.

The reason why I rejected it is because it was a fairly trivial edit on a very old post, and in general bumping old questions to the top of the home page for nothing more than minor edits is frowned upon. If it's survived for seven years in its current state, you've really got to wonder how bad could it be, really?

6
  • 5
    The advice I've always seen is that you should tidy as you go: don't go searching for problems, but do fix things as you come across them. And it's not a trivial edit when it's so poorly spelled that it may give an ESL speaker trouble understanding it.
    – TRiG
    Commented Dec 13, 2018 at 11:19
  • 2
    That's not necessarily the advice around here.
    – MadHatter
    Commented Dec 13, 2018 at 20:46
  • And you think spelling so bad that even a native speaker is tripped up, and a non-native might be seriously confused, counts as trivial, @MadHatter?
    – TRiG
    Commented Dec 21, 2018 at 11:39
  • No, @TRiG, I don't. What I think is that resurrecting an old article to the top of the front page has a cost, which increases with the age of the article, because irrelevant cruft on the front page is a turn-off for everyone. The cost must be balanced against the benefit; so if you were fixing this in a month-old article, I'd be very happy to approve it. At seven years old, the article would have to be horrendously wrong to justify resurrection-by-fixup.
    – MadHatter
    Commented Dec 21, 2018 at 11:54
  • 4
    I thoroughly disagree with this rejection, and with the idea that old posts shouldn't be edited. This particular post is high traffic and relatively timeless; Apache still works this way and probably will for many years to come; the post could well have been posted yesterday with the same content. The edit is quite useful. It should not have been rejected.
    – Michael Hampton Mod
    Commented Dec 21, 2018 at 23:11
  • 1
    Well, when suggested edit reviews start getting view counts next to them, we can start taking that into account.
    – womble Mod
    Commented Dec 22, 2018 at 0:43

You must log in to answer this question.

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