1

Recently a lot of my edits have been rejected by the same user, all of these edits were correcting basic English, such correcting "cus" to "because", or "dose" to "does". Is there a policy against allowing minor grammatical changes to a post (which I doubt given how my posts have been edited for the sake of 1 mistyped letter). For reference, here are some of the posts I am talking about (note that all of these are questions): enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

I have also noticed that some posts could have been edited further, but surely in that case should my edit be accepted then more edits been made to give me credit for editing a large amount of the post anyway? Am I missing something I should be doing when I edit posts?

6

Going through your history, most of them were rejected because you were changing the language, but also other trivial things that were not required to hit the character limit, or the edits missed out key things to also edit and change. These are grounds to be rejected and normally updated by a user who has the privilege to do the edit without going through the queue. See this meta post on why trivial edits are generally looked down upon

Most of the reject reasons you are getting are:

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.

The others are:

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

The last one you have posted a screenshot to seem to object to your inclusion of the:

Sorry for my bad English.

Even though you updated it, generally we don't need that information on this site and it can be deleted, I wouldn't have rejected the edit myself, but instead did an improve as your other changes seemed fine, but you'll need to wait for Frank to clarify why they did the reject

2

I'll make a short answer since I know I have rejected some.

I've done the same to other users who seemed to be doing mass amounts of edits, especially ones that (In my opinion) fall under the "Little to no improvement" or "changes the post too much".

While yes your edits improve some grammar, fix spelling etc, the original post wasn't the worse thing in the world and was readable. Generally these types of issues (as I've seen) are edited by those over 2K rep so they can immediately do it as a post is made (as to not really affect the 'active' questions chain). Whereas if you're going back and making all these edits to older posts, they then clog up the active questions for little to no reason.

You must log in to answer this question.

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