What to do when OP's edit/clarification invalidates existing answers

Question

As I write, Continued to vs Continuing is "On Hold", but it seems very likely it'll be re-opened following an edit/clarification from the OP.

As originally framed, the question only really made sense if OP's second example was interpreted as a newspaper headline. Valid answers were posted addressing that possibility, but following the edit, that interpretation is no longer relevant. In my opinion, this raises two points...

1: The original question should remain closed (I consider the "grammar" of newspaper headlines to be Off Topic for ELL, but I think it does no harm to leave it answered but closed).

2: I think the revised question should be posted as a new question.

Answer 1

What you're saying makes perfect sense. You're correct that the OP's edit essentially changes the nature of the question. If there weren't already answers that would be okay, but there are. In this case, I would do the following:

1. Roll back the edit. This is important. In this case the question is on hold and thus unlikely to get further answers that conflict, but that's not always the case. A question should never be edited into a form that changes the question completely enough that old answers no longer apply. Reversing this is the most important step.
2. Leave a comment to the OP informing them of the quandary with their question (you can even link to this meta post!). Let them know that while their new question is valid, it's very different from the original, and should be asked again separately. Explicitly ask them to do so, and inform them that you've rolled back the post but that their new content can still be found in the revision history.

3. Give them a reasonable period of time (let's say 24 hours) to respond to this notice. If they don't do so, and you think the new question is very good and would improve the quality of ELL overall, proceed to step 4. If they don't do so and you aren't in love with the question, you're all done here. There's nothing more to worry about.

4. Do it yourself: copy the relevant information into the body of a new question. Then leave a link on the original question explaining to the OP what you've done. The new question has been asked in a logically separate place, and can receive its own answers. Everybody's happy, and if the OP returns later they can easily find the link that answers their question.

This is an ELL-tailored version of advice I've been given on SO when having similar problems, so I think it should be an acceptable course of action. I imagine that SO users don't often repost the new questions, but hey; if you think it's going to be good for ELL, why not? :)

For this specific question, I've just performed the rollback and I'm about to leave a note for the OP explaining the proper course of action. If you'd like to keep an eye on it and repost the new question later on if you feel strongly about it, I think that would work well!

Answer 2

Well, I posted a long answer to his OP (and just now noticed the closure). I disagree with bringing this particular post and edit up to a meta level incident, but only in the context of the OP and his subsequent edit. As a general use case of dealing with edits that change a questions meaning, every suggestion under that rubric has merit of course.

the question only really made sense if OP's second example was interpreted as a newspaper headline. - FumbleFingers

Well, you said in the first comment that it is an incomplete sentence. Only later, some reasonable time after my answer, was mention made of it being possibly a news headline. Taking the OP's question for what it was, one sentence and one sentence fragment, I went to some length showing the OP possible variations in hopes of clarification. ( I don't personally care about this specific matter, but it seems that you all didn't read my answer before jumping into this meta. )

And, strangely to me, the OP's edit (as shown in Wendi's rollback link) seems to improve the OP's real question ! (At least what I thought he was asking about.)

Here is how I see it: If the rollback had not been made, the OP's edit were allowed to stand, and then I answered his question, my answer would be exactly the same as it stands now (sans mentioning OP needs to clarify).

Secondly - and this is meta - I am baffled that we should "consider the "grammar" of newspaper headlines to be Off Topic for ELL." If so, I feel sorry for all the non-native speakers who might be here looking for assistance. { @FumbleFingers - a personal question: have you ever learned another language, or lived in another country for more than a few months ? ( No, I'm not flaming, just wondering :)) }

Newspapers are a learning source. And most reasonable people suspect that newspapers, TV, and radio frequently apply the language in question in questionable ways.

If I read something newspaper-ish and I am unsure, I'd rather come here and get an answer PLUS a stock caveat of "Caution: That is News-Speak." (Use a flaming dragon icon ? ) If my question was just closed with a "sorry pal, you can't ask news grammar here," I'd likely roll up my New York times and catch another bus.

How the heck is a non-native supposed to know what news worthy English and what's not?

Answer 3

I am the OP of that question.I was writing a sentense and then got confused between the two forms.So I searched for sentenses that used those 2 forms and posted them here. However I was told that it was not a proper question.Hence I never got the answer I was looking for.So I was compelled to change the question so that it can be answered better.But then came a new twist when I was told that I was changing the nature of the question and all the edits were reverted. Well the solution is that while editing if someone does NOT remove the previous question BUT give additional details BELOW it, using the title "edit:",not only will the previous answers be applicable but future answerers will answers the edited part directly. So both answers will be correct for their respective questions.