-1

I understand the reason discussed in one of my other posts (My Suggested Edits intend to improve accuracy was considered as "does not make the post even a little bit easier to read"), that is

The answers all mention "gerund" and none mention "participle". A learner won't necessarily know the difference between a gerund and a present participle. Leaving the question as it is makes it easier to find for them.

I agree with that the consideration.

What about this one?

enter image description here

the edited post is about passive and active voice,

We have known to each other

We have been known to each other

However, the asker consider it as "Present perfect or present perfect continuous", so I submitted a edit to correct that and was rejected.

I am not asking a general question about the rules. I just want to know the detailed reason for this rejection.

Why does the reviewer think a wrong term is better for learners to find.

| |
3

Ultimately, the suggested edit was more confusing than helpful because it suggested that the OP wanted to know whether a passive or active voice was required.

We have known to each other for many years.

We have been known to each other for many years.

Instead, the OP was confused between the Present Perfect and Present Perfect Continuous. Any subsequent answers would NOT have been focused on these two forms but on the Passive or Active voice. If the edit had actually included the continuous form, that might have helped the OP understand what was essentially missing; e.g.

We have known to each other for many years.

We have been knowing to each other for many years.

Adding the -ing suffix, in my view, would have shown the OP which element was missing in their post, possibly cleared up a misunderstanding of terminology and in addition, helped users create more convincing and clearer answers and explanations.

However, when askers use the wrong terminology, it is best to leave a comment pointing out the discrepancy in order to remove misunderstanding or confusion.

Last but not least, the question was posted Jun 13, 2019. None of the answers posted last year mention anything about the Passive or Active voice. By approving the edit, the answers would appear to be unrelated or unfocused.

| |
  • Thank you. Did you notice, the whole page does not even mention "knowing" one time, neither the question nor the answer. – WXJ96163 Mar 24 at 11:30
  • I guess the OP care about the difference between those two sentences more the one about grammar. – WXJ96163 Mar 24 at 11:35
  • In reply to the first comment: Yes, that why I mentioned the missing suffix -ing in my answer here. – Mari-Lou A Mar 24 at 11:35
  • It's never a good idea to edit a semi-obsolete post (over 6 months old) unless the proposed fixes improve clarity and do not affect negatively the answers posted. – Mari-Lou A Mar 24 at 11:38
  • "the suggested edit suggested that the OP wanted to know whether a passive or active voice was required" is a good consideration, I'll buy it. Thank you, that's very kind of you. – WXJ96163 Mar 24 at 11:39
  • "It's never a good idea to edit a semi-obsolete post", well, the community bumped it up, after that I submitted my edit. Did you notice that? – WXJ96163 Mar 24 at 11:43
  • @WXJ96163 was the post edited? No. The system automatically bumps posts which either have no answers or the answers are not upvoted in the hope that someone posts a definite answer. – Mari-Lou A Mar 24 at 11:50
  • "It's never a good idea to edit a semi-obsolete post (over 6 months old) unless the proposed fixes improve clarity and do not affect negatively the answers posted", is it just your own opinion or a wide recognized convention? – WXJ96163 Mar 24 at 11:53
  • 2
    @WXJ96163 If you want to engage in an argument, I am not interested. Because now if I said it was common practice you would ask me to provide proof, and I would have to search the ELL archives to support my view, which was only posted in a comment. I am not about to spend time searching the archives. You can do that, try also Meta Stack Exchange although the site is little too biased towards Stack Overflow for my liking. – Mari-Lou A Mar 24 at 11:58
  • 2
    @WXJ96163 Why would you think invalidating existing answers on an old post with an edit that doesn't significantly clarify the question is a practice that wouldn't be discouraged? The purpose of clarifying a question is to improve the answers it will get and improve the discoverability of the answers. Invalidating good answers a question has already received is counter-productive. If someone is searching for "passive voice" finding answers talking about present perfect is confusing. – ColleenV Mar 24 at 15:33
  • @ColleenVpartedways I really didn't realize my edit suggested that the OP wanted to know whether a passive or active voice was required, until Mari-Lou A reminds me and I've already said I agree with her. By "invalidating", do you mean the same thing? – WXJ96163 Mar 24 at 22:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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