10

A few minutes ago I answered this question: What's the best amount of Hz?

The question was rather confused, but it was clear from reading it that the asker did not actually want to know the optimal refresh rate ("amount of Hz") for gaming, but wanted to know why there was a second or more of delay between input and display on his TV.

I answered the question on this basis (https://gaming.stackexchange.com/a/188768/34348), and then went back and edited the question (https://gaming.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/101925) to make it less confused and make its intent clear. I left a comment asking the asker to confirm that this was his intent.

Within about 2-3 minutes, two reviewers had voted to reject the edit on the basis that it "deviates from the original intent of the post". It's certainly true that it substantially changes the meaning of the title - and if the title is all that the reviewers read, then I can readily see how they would come to this conclusion - but in my view the whole purpose of the edit was to retain the intent of the question and to make the title and the last paragraph reflect this.

In thinking about this matter I am reminded of this recent blog.SO post: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2014/10/new-editing-badges-and-enhancements-to-suggested-edits/

Did I act wrongly? Was the rejection reasonable? If so, why? Have I misunderstood something somewhere?

  • 1
    I read the question, and while yes, that was the problem he was describing, it wasn't the question he was asking. You were removing his actual question with your edit. – Frank Oct 20 '14 at 14:47
  • I didn't see the edit in question (yay having to start over after deleting my acct 2 years ago!), but it's still possible that it's a network issue and removing that does substantially change the question. – Powerlord Oct 20 '14 at 14:49
  • 4
    @frank so you agree about what he actually wanted to know, and you think that rather than helping him out, the correct approach is to pedantically answer the exact question posed, the answer to which would be entirely useless to him? – Flyto Oct 20 '14 at 14:50
  • 5
    How you go about it is up to you. You answer what you want. But when it comes to suggested edits, you don't alter what the asker is asking, even if you think it's irrelevant. – Frank Oct 20 '14 at 14:53
  • 2
    I notice that my answer - which does not answer the question that he asked - is still the only one there... sigh Every time I try to get involved and helpful on Arqade, I get knocked back by rules lawyers. The absence of discussion here suggests that this is accepted as How Things Should Be, so I guess I'll stick to coming here when I want to know something rather than fully participating. Bye. :-/ – Flyto Oct 21 '14 at 8:47
  • 3
    @SimonW Don't let your mood get dragged down by pedanticists, instead just try to help people the way you think is best. What does a silly downvote matter if you helped out someone (which is the actual point of the stack exchange)? That's right, it doesn't. – No. 7892142 Oct 23 '14 at 7:22
  • 2
    You can also suggest the asker to rephrase their question themself in order to make it more relevant and less confusing. That's what I usually do – WizLiz Oct 27 '14 at 14:53
0

I hear your frustrations.

You knew what the person, asking the question was getting at, and you make the changes accordingly.

On top of that are those users who are quick to push the reject button.

Stackexchange attracts a LOT of people. You asked if you acted wrongly / misunderstood something.

Here's what I think you may have missed:

  • Stackexchange is for the masses

You are probably right, you knew what the person was asking. But at the end of the day, say there were 100 people (including you) who made changes based on what they thought was being asked.

With a site like this, you just can't have one off rules for some people. It needs to be the same, consistent rule across all.

  • Stackexchange attracts all sort of people, some with "excess" time on their hands

I too have been on the receiving end of (what I see) are unreasonable rules. Unfortunately, that is the way it is.

(Similar to the comment by @No._7892142) At the end of the day, you just need to find your own space and your own way to contribute.

  • 1
    -1 for your first few paragraphs. SE has an overriding rule to not change the intent of the asker's question. That, above all, guides what edits should and should not be made. You are making massive assumptions when you alter the intent of a question, without anything in the comments from the asker. – Frank Oct 27 '14 at 18:04
  • 1
    What if the asker just expressed his question in a wrong way and his intent was actually what the question would have been changed to, and you do this after talking to the person asking? – No. 7892142 Oct 27 '14 at 21:14
  • 1
    @Frank wtf? I am agreeing with you. I'm just wording it in a way that answers Simon W's question. Not YOUR question... – Christian Payne Oct 27 '14 at 23:29
  • You're making the implication that the reject was an invalid action. That's what I'm disagreeing with. Not only was that suggested edit invalid, I am confident it would have been rejected regardless of who was reviewing it. It was not, in any sense, something that should have been changed by anyone but the asker. By implying that such suggestions are valid, you are encouraging others to ignore our standards and make those types of suggestions more often. – Frank Oct 28 '14 at 2:27
  • Now who has made the massive assumption? I didn't say the reject was invalid, (but that doesn't matter). Not sure how the community benefits by you voting me down, without contributing a better answer yourself. (Especially since there are no other answers.) If mine was as inappropriate as you say, then everyone would vote for yours. @Frank, we can go tit-for-tat commenting all day, or you can contribute a better answer. I know which I would prefer to read... – Christian Payne Oct 28 '14 at 3:01
  • @ChristianPayne You sound like you take all of this very personally. Note that downvoting a question/answer or rejecting an edit is not a personal attack on the submitter. The goal of SE is to have good questions and good answers and we all work toward (and benefit from) this common goal. – KOVIKO Oct 30 '14 at 21:15
  • @Koviko perhaps, but where is the better answer? – Christian Payne Oct 30 '14 at 21:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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