4

Following up on several comments I made in a recent Meta discussion, I edited a question today. The OP of that question is asking about a specific passage from an online article. They posted the link to the article without actually putting up the paragraph at issue, so I edited the question to include the paragraph the OP wants to discuss.

But the edit was rejected by @FumbleFingers with the cookie-cutter reply

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.

This really befuddles me. I deem the edit helpful and necessary for an improvement in clarity. Someone gotta do it.

| |
  • You removed the link to the article instead of just bringing in the additional context (which I agree is a helpful edit). I might have improved your edit instead of rejecting it, or chosen a different reason for rejecting it. – ColleenV Mar 27 '18 at 14:47
  • 1
    @ColleenV If I remember correctly, I put the link in a hyperlink box under the word "article," which is how I would format it in my own post. – Eddie Kal Mar 27 '18 at 14:56
  • 1
    I would have approved that, actually. It's likely Fumble thought you edited out the link. (Blame SE's edit preview) My preferred style, which is commonly used, is to add a "Source" with a dash, and use it to link to the article. It's hard to miss too. ;) – M.A.R. Mar 27 '18 at 15:22
  • Yes, you did. Sorry I’m on my phone and the full screen render of the suggested edit difference is hard to read. I wouldn’t have rejected it. – ColleenV Mar 27 '18 at 15:23
  • @Colleen that's no excuse, I'm on mobile too. :P – M.A.R. Mar 27 '18 at 15:26
  • @M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ Is your default view "markdown" or "rendered output" ? I still say this is a user interface problem. Also, you could have a nicer phone than I have :) – ColleenV Mar 27 '18 at 15:42
  • @Colleen rendered output. You can't win. – M.A.R. Mar 27 '18 at 15:44
4

It was difficult to see that you kept the link to the article, especially in the "rendered output" view in the suggested edit queue. I went ahead and approved the edit, because it is helpful to extract context from a link so that folks don't have to go to another site to understand the question.

For future edits like this one, I would suggest adding the title of the article and using that as the link description instead of "this article". If the location of the article changes and breaks the link, having the title of the article will make it easier to find.

| |
  • 3
    It's important to always look at both the rendered view (to make sure it looks right) and the markdown view (to make sure nothing is being missed, good or bad). For example, this edit looks a blank edit, but it's a different story if you look at the markdown. Markdown view is only shown automatically for edits that change links, but because the link target stayed the same, it showed the rendered preview. – Laurel Mar 29 '18 at 3:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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