I provided a comment to a question/answer about the
Someone noticed a single character error in a command over there, and he was upset because it had cost him and his team time. I suggested we simply fix the error. It was obviously wrong, and we both tested it to be wrong. I even provided proof that it was wrong in the comments. Ultimately, I did what makes sense, I contributed an edit. To my surprise it was rejected within short time:
Thomas reviewed this 11 hours ago: Reject This edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner.
Vlastimil reviewed this 11 hours ago: Reject 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 don't really understand the reasoning behind these rejection notices. I simply fixed a syntax error by adding a single colon (
:) in the command. I also added an edit notice so that new readers would understand the context of the discussion in the comments below the answer.
This has happened to me before over at other SE sites, so I'm starting to wonder if fixing syntax/coding errors is not encouraged? I checked if this sort of edits were ok over at SO, and it seems like it is encouraged there:
Edits are expected to be substantial and to leave the post better than you found it. Common reasons for edits include:
- To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages
I'm assuming the same applies to U&L?
Anyway, such rejections happen, and I was about to just ignore the whole thing, but then I noticed this. Someone with higher U&L reputation did the same edit as me. This is of course a good thing, however, it does seem like the edit review process needs more work.
Why where the reviewers inclined to reject my original edit? Could I have made a better edit? If it was an ok edit, how can we improve the edit review process?