My suggested edit was rejected, but I don't know why. Every time I see a reject vote, the reason is the same:


I think if the reviewer wrote some words why he rejected the edit instead of this useless default reason, that'd help the suggestor realize what he should do next time to prevent wrong edits, or to see what they misunderstand, so he can suggest a better, improved edit.

In my case, I see no reason why I wouldn't update the stats, it doesn't change the answer itself, and no one needs a 2 years old graph when there's a newer one.

  • 1
    This appears to be a case where the reviewers rejecting your edit weren't aware they could have skipped it when in doubt. Your edit does seem rather cryptic by itself - if it wasn't for the edit summary, which, unfortunately, most reviewers don't seem to pay attention to. – BoltClock Aug 27 '15 at 11:05
  • 1
    I think that, for historic purposes, It's a good idea to leave the 2013 percentage in that post. Maybe add the new statistic, instead of replacing the old one. – Cerbrus Aug 27 '15 at 11:13
  • 3
    I agree with the quoted reason. While yes, people may be more interested in a more recent value a) most are intelligent enough to guess that the value will go down over time, and there's not a lot to be gained from keeping it continually up-to-date. b) it's not an important part of the answer. in fact, I'd argue that most of the content in that answer above the <hr/> is fluff. – TZHX Aug 27 '15 at 11:14
  • 1
    Okay, that's what you think. I don't care if my edit was rejected, but I want to know why. Couldn't the reviewers wrote what you've just told me? – klenium Aug 27 '15 at 11:17
  • 2
    @klenium They did, but more succinctly, by choosing the option that fit. "Changes are either completely superfluous" – TZHX Aug 27 '15 at 11:21
  • @TZHX Yes, I'm sure that default reason contains everything why all of the suggested edits have been rejected so far. I can write "I think it's good" for edit summary, and woah, that's ture!, as well as they can reject this feature-request "Because we don't want it", but these don't explain the why, and that's what I asked for. Thank you guys for explaining it to me here, but it should've been done in the reject reason so that I/we don't need to come here to ask why they didn't like my suggested edit if we want to know what we did wrong. – klenium Aug 27 '15 at 11:30
  • @klenium to use a meme as response, ain't nobody got time for that!. – TZHX Aug 27 '15 at 11:32
  • 2
    You can make all the micro-edits you want once you get to 3000 rep. Until then, it does take 3 to 5 other SO users that need to review your edit. Who are typically not that thrilled that they must spend their free time on trivial edits. YMMV, some don't mind. Do beware that it isn't exactly that welcome either when you don't need reviews anymore. An edit re-activates a Q+A and pushes it back onto the front page. To be looked at again for no fantastic reason. So you can put a positive spin on it, as unlikely that seems possible, these SO users are teaching you how to edit properly. – Hans Passant Aug 27 '15 at 11:33
  • @TZHX Are you sure? They have time for reviewing edits. They don't have +5 seconds to help me? That's why we're there, helping each other. – klenium Aug 27 '15 at 11:36

I see no reason why I wouldn't update the stats

Because the change is not that significant, and because the part you edited is hardly relevant to the answer itself, as below that statistic the user proceeds to write an answer that makes the statistic irrelevant.

You need to find more pressing issues to fix. It is not the reviewer's task to educate the editor about ediquette, the editor should do that themselves.

Reviewers can write a custom reject reason for edits, but generally, by the time I've done that, the edit is already accepted by others.

You must log in to answer this question.

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