I may have found the need for a feature request in the iOS Stack Exchange app, although I would like to have my assumption confirmed.

I have raised this feature request on Meta, iOS app does not warn that a subsequent edit has been made.

The issue is that I attempted to make an edit to the question, How to use 'either or'?. The edit was rejected - which was fair enough:

My attempted edit

but the replacement edit was nearly identical (although my proposed ellipsis in the title was missing):

Actual edit history

Therefore, I was rather stumped, as to why my edit had been rejected.

It took me a while to realise that my edit had tried to revert Jasper's tag changes. I had not meant to do this, but as I had opened the edit before Jasper's changes were made, and then submitted afterwards, my simple typo fixing edit also attempted to revert Jasper's tag changes. This was not my intention.


Long story short, was my edit rejected (as it should have been), because of the (inadvertent) tag changes, or for some other reason? I am assuming that it was due to the proposed tag changes, rather than the spelling correction and added ellipses.

If so, then I do apologise and that it was due to a deficiency in my version of the iOS app, rather than an intentional tag change. Hence, my feature request for the iOS app on SE.Meta

1 Answer 1


It was a "reject and edit", so someone in the queue noticed that you had accidentally reverted the tag changes, and they kept your edits and restored the tags, that's why it looks identical.

And just to give you a little more context, it was the Community Bot that actually rejected the edit after a reviewer selected "Reject and edit" instead of just "Reject" or "Approve". The comment under the community bot rejection is:

This edit did not correct critical issues with the post - view the revision history to see what should have been changed.

  • I believe that Reject and Edit actually removes the proposed edit and allows the reviewer to makes their own edits. What you describe sounds more like the behaviour of Improve Edit, which is not what happened in this case. If it had just been an improved edit, then the proposed ellipsis in the title would still have made the edit. Also, I would have got the +2 rep change for the edit. So, this is what leads me to believe that the edit was rejected. Sorry, my original question may have omitted some details that made this clear.I shall update it. Commented Dec 9, 2016 at 16:44
  • However, I am not debating that the edit should have been debated - I agree that it should have been rejected - but I am just trying to clarify why it was rejected. Was it because of the tags, or because of the changes to the text? Commented Dec 9, 2016 at 16:45
  • I have just seen your clarification. OK, thanks. :-) Commented Dec 9, 2016 at 16:58
  • 2
    @Greenonline I can't speak for Nathan, but I believe that your edit while helpful, bordered on trivial, and it did some damage (accidentally) by leaving a question tagged with only grammar, so it was rejected instead of improved. It's kind of frustrating to see a typo like that and not be able to fix it because it's only one character, and to have a good-faith edit rejected. I don't think you should worry too much about it. You didn't do anything wrong, you just got to see how the community works together to make site content better :)
    – ColleenV
    Commented Dec 9, 2016 at 16:59
  • I agree that it did border on the trivial - that is why I left it in draft form on my iPhone overnight, so that I could sleep on it, but then, in the morning, I ended up submitting it as the "bu" was, as you said, quite frustrating to see. Hence I added the ellipses to overcome the 6 character limit. Unfortunately, in the meanwhile, the tags had been changed. Anyhoo... Thanks again. Commented Dec 9, 2016 at 17:10
  • 1
    To echo what Colleen says, I think your heart was in the right place, and there's no reason to be concerned about one rejected edit. Thanks for taking the time to explain what happened, and thanks for your efforts in improving the site.
    – J.R. Mod
    Commented Dec 9, 2016 at 17:57
  • 1
    @Greenonline: I can confirm that Colleen has my thought process right. I've seen good suggestions overtaken by events in the past, and assumed the edit's mistakes were probably a simple accident of timing, rather than incompetence or carelessness. (The ellipsis in the title I did not notice at the time. It would probably have been helpful, but not crucial.) Commented Dec 12, 2016 at 3:40
  • @J.R. - Thanks for the feedback. No problem and you are more than welcome. Commented Dec 12, 2016 at 8:22
  • @NathanTuggy - Thank you for the confirmation Commented Dec 12, 2016 at 8:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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