3

I've made a couple of edit suggestions on a particular question and commented between them to try to explain, but both edits were rejected by the asker with the custom reason, "Why I need to remove [the] answer?". Is there anything more I can do to fix this?

| |
  • 2
    Flagging for moderation attention is an option. – Damkerng T. Jun 5 '15 at 16:36
  • 4
    Sometimes it takes a little time for newer users to accept the well-intended suggestions from more seasoned veterans. Given that this question was ultimately closed, I decided to delete it. Thank you for your proactive edits, your helpful comment to the O.P., and the way you constructively brought the matter to the community's attention here. – J.R. Jun 5 '15 at 18:36
  • I don't know what was 'the answer' the poster linked about and how it was causing any problem there, but I also don't see the reason the poster's good intention stated by 'thank you' had to be removed. – karlalou Jun 7 '15 at 0:00
  • 3
    @karlalou: On SE in general, "thanks" is replaced by accepting answers and upvotes, or occasionally put in comments if there's something specific to thank someone for. It's assumed that askers appreciate anyone who takes the time to help them, but adding to the noise surrounding the actual question is not desirable. That's also why signatures, greetings, irrelevant biographical information, and so forth are generally removed: they don't help anyone else determine if they have the same question and they don't help answer either, they're just polite nothings. – Nathan Tuggy Jun 7 '15 at 0:17
  • @karlalou: See also Should 'Hi', 'thanks,' taglines, and salutations be removed from posts? on the mother meta for one of the crucial early discussions on this. – Nathan Tuggy Jun 7 '15 at 0:19
  • @ Nathan Tuggy, I understand if the poster starts posting just to say one word "Thanks" or "Thank you" then there would be people have to be bothered to go there just to see the one word. That would be inconvenient. But what you've removed was on the original post. – karlalou Jun 7 '15 at 1:35
  • 3
    @karlalou: Yes. Multiple people will read that post; most of them are not included in the vagueness of the thanks there and there is no reason for them to read it. I do not usually remove "thanks" when that's the only problem with a post, but here it was rolled in with the other, more important edit to remove a (link-only, vague) answer from the wrong place. – Nathan Tuggy Jun 7 '15 at 1:37
  • @Araucaria: Apparently the comment on the post is gone now for some reason. As far as "insensitivity", my second suggestion, more diplomatically phrased and removing nothing beyond the needless "thank you" and misplaced answer link, was similarly rejected for the same lack of reason. All edits should be made to include all problems identifiable, as a standard SE policy, and in point of fact the SE consensus has always been that relatively small edits like removing thanks are best done along with more substantial edits. – Nathan Tuggy Jun 16 '15 at 0:10
  • @Araucaria: Basically, though, I entirely disagree that fixing minor (non-stylistic) grammar glitches, adding a relevant tag, removing redundant text, and removing text that never belongs in a question, separately or together, make the post worse. Those are all improvements; some are perhaps too small to be useful as a suggested edit by themselves, but fortunately that was not the case. This view is supported by hundreds of accepted edits on the network across half a dozen sites, many of which were accepted by their respective OPs, even for similar grammar corrections and fluff removals. – Nathan Tuggy Jun 16 '15 at 0:15
  • @NathanTuggy What I'm getting at is that if you make a major edit, leave the trivial stuff alone so that the rationale for the edit is clear to the OP and to everyone else. Fluff removals are fine. But when you do an edit that is correct but is obviously a bit contentious for OP, because it moves some of the intent of their post, then you need to stuff the fluff removal. It's obviously not helpful. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jun 16 '15 at 0:22
  • 1
    @Araucaria: I do not see how that would help in this or really any situation; the OP rejected the edits by asking why the removal of the answer was essential, and nowhere indicated any other objections. I have never seen any other objections to this sort of bundling, and indeed bundling trivial edits with others is the one recommendation most often given to avoid reviewers waffling over rejecting an edit as too minor. For suggested edits, each revision should carry as much of the load as possible to avoid making reviewers do extra work for no particular reason. – Nathan Tuggy Jun 16 '15 at 0:27
  • @NathanTuggy Sorry, I couldn't see the deleted comment/post originally. (I only looked at the first two links) – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jun 16 '15 at 0:27
  • @Araucaria: OK. I posted the comment (the text of which I don't perfectly remember) before making the second suggestion, in an attempt to explain to the OP why the edit was necessary. I don't know why they felt that to be inadequate. – Nathan Tuggy Jun 16 '15 at 0:32
  • @NathanTuggy Please see my comment above - we're cross-posting a bit, and I may have been mistaken because your comment made all the difference. But I disagree about bundling in trivial rubbish when an original big edit is going to be difficult for the OP. Also, on this site, I really think you need to think about whether some edits are necessary at all. It's not the case that typos have to be corrected in OPs' questions or answers when they don't affect intelligibility. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jun 16 '15 at 0:33
  • @NathanTuggy However, I unreservedly take back the grumpy and mistaken tenor of my previous comment. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jun 16 '15 at 0:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .