4

I just proposed an edit to this answer at When to pronounce ‹s› as /z/ in the middle of words? My edit basically fixed some formatting, and added additional tendencies and example words.

My proposed edit was rejected for the reason:

This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.

The answer contains the following sentence:

I hope others can help edit this list if they think of exceptions.

I think the reviewers may not have noticed this; if they did, I wonder why my edits were rejected. Leaving them as a comment is an inferior option as comments are less visible, and that is not what comments are for anyway. The edited post was not a question, so I obviously can't post an answer to it. I could post a new answer of my own, but I don't see the point. (I guess there is a difference between "exceptions" and "other rules," but it seems minor to me.)

| |
  • The only edit I see is from snailboat for changing the title, writing full spellings of American and British and again a minor formatting. What's wrong in that? If you want to write American and British English in short, write 'AmE' and 'BrE'. 'Amr' and 'Bri' don't exist for the thing you want to convey. – Maulik V Dec 9 '15 at 5:20
  • 1
    Ouch. I see what the case is. We encourage substantive edits. Yours was a bit too substantive. – M.A.R. Dec 9 '15 at 11:56
  • 1
    I rejected the edit because, while many of your changes were good, you were adding so much it would really have been better to write your own answer. – Nathan Tuggy Dec 9 '15 at 21:34
  • 1
    What @Nathan said. I didn't wade through the entirety of the (substantial) edit, but it does seem more like an "answer" than "clarifying amendments". – FumbleFingers Reinstate Monica Dec 12 '15 at 18:06
5

That "reason" is selected from a short list of prewritten justifications, so don't read too much into that part about comments. It's a catch-all reason.

In this case, I think you might have added too much. It's not uncommon for suggested edits to be rejected if they are anything more than minor tweaks. Had you merely added a few more example words here and there (like disdain, disgust, massive, missive, etc.), I think the edit would have been accepted.

When you added this, however:

An s after a vowel and before m is always voiced /z/: chasm, prism, plasma. However, the top rule takes precedence, so the s in mismatch is always voiceless /s/. It is rare for "s" to occur before or after a voiced consonant word-medially besides "m" (except by prefixing as in example one), but it would generally be voiced in such a situation (example: muslin)

I can see why the reviewers would think that belongs as part of an answer, rather than being folded into the question.

| |
  • 3
    I wasn't involved in reviewing this one, but unless the editor is adding something the OP wrote in a comment, or the post is a community wiki, I don't like to see completely new ideas added to a post even if the OP is OK with it. I think if there's something new to be said, the editor should make their own post. – ColleenV Dec 9 '15 at 12:42
  • Thanks for the response! Actually, I moved that part and added the parts before. But, I can see why it might be considered too major. – sumelic Dec 9 '15 at 15:26
  • In a case like this where it seems the original author of the post welcomes collaboration, I would defer to the author. Maybe we can ping hunter with a comment and leave it up to them whether to incorporate the changes from the suggestion. – snailplane Dec 10 '15 at 3:56
  • 2
    @snailboat I would expect the author of an answer that welcomed collaboration to make the answer a community wiki. Reputation confers privileges on the site, and it seems to me that if the editor dramatically improves the answer by adding new content, the OP gets undeserved reputation and the editor doesn't get the acknowledgement they deserve. I know reputation isn't that big a deal, but it is a core mechanism of the SE system, and I think a wiki answer is more in line with how collaboration should be done. – ColleenV Dec 10 '15 at 15:41
  • @Colleen - Unless it's an extreme case, I don't have any problem with a user gaining rep on a question that was improved by an edit. – J.R. Dec 10 '15 at 15:51
  • @J.R. Questions can't be wikis, so it's a different case. I still don't like editors putting words in the mouth of someone else though. I don't have a problem with edits in general improving an answer, but I don't think adding significant content to an answer you didn't write should be encouraged unless it's a wiki. The editor should write their own answer, especially if they are still at the reputation level that they can only suggest edits. The more conscientious editors we have that can correct posts without needing a peer review, the better in my opinion. – ColleenV Dec 10 '15 at 15:59
  • @ColleenV - Yup, I agree with that, too. :^) – J.R. Dec 10 '15 at 21:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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