3

I've edited the answer to this question but the edit got rejected for "This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost". The answer as it is now is a one-liner with a link (only the link provides the answer).

I've edited in the information from the link, meaning I copied the four FAQ answers from here and put them in formatted just as the source, keeping the source link.

Then I also found the answer to the question for the Vita in case it's not being played on PC and put it in there as well as a short paragraph, from the same source website in the same format. I didn't want to make it a new answer, because I didn't want to take the right link from an already existing answer and just copy the source for myself, and as I was already editing I thought I could just also put in the short extra information.

So in the end, instead of a one-liner, there was the source information in case the link dies sometime and a short explanation for what to look out on Vita.

I did not change the original intent of the answer, as I just copied in the source plus a short Vita tip. Isn't that what's supposed to be done when someone only posts a link with no explanation? Or should I post that as a new answer instead? But that didn't feel right to me. Should I maybe have answered the Vita part seperately?

edit: Here's the link to the edit so you can see for yourself what I did: https://gaming.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/96140

  • 1
    If all you're doing is a straight copy and paste from a link in the answer, I would've actually rejected that as too minor. – Frank Aug 30 '14 at 13:20
  • 2
    @Frank I don't really get that. The answer has been downvoted now with the (imho correct) reason that it should contain the content of the given link. Why wait for the poster of the answer to edit it in (which he might never do), but reject it when someone else does it? Also, I didn't just copy it in, I also gave the additional info for Vita. And then the reject reason was not "too minor" but rather "too much". – Kodama Aug 30 '14 at 13:30
  • 1
    Rather than fix someone else's problematic post, it's better to just make your own. Especially if you're adding in extra information like you are. I had completely missed that when I looked at it; I thought you had just taken what was at the link and pasted it in. But I bet that's why it was rejected as too much; edits aren't to add yet more information to an answer, but to fix issues with the post itself. You went beyond fixing to adding information the answerer may not have wanted. – Frank Aug 30 '14 at 13:33
  • 1
    @Frank Ok, that's what I've been wondering. I didn't want to "steal" the find from the other user, when I make my own answer which mostly consists of the information in the link he has provided. One thing though, making the mistake of only posting a link right by copying the information is too minor, but adding other information goes beyond fixing? I still don't get why I shouldn't fix the answer by copying in the link information, as is requested by the comments of the answer. – Kodama Aug 30 '14 at 13:49
  • 1
    See this meta post. For the most part, so long as you give credit from where you got it, you meet the attribution rules. You have some unique content that didn't come from that post, so I don't see any problems with you using that link from the other answer. – Frank Aug 30 '14 at 13:51
  • Suggested Edits are a pretty subjective thing; we don't have hard and fast rules for what constitutes minor or major edits. It's pretty much up to the reviewers to decide. – Frank Aug 30 '14 at 13:53
  • So now the OP copied the stuff in and it was approved. Then I guess I didn't do anything wrong? Except adding the Vita part by editing instead of answering? – Kodama Aug 30 '14 at 15:15
  • Actually, that was yet another suggested edit by someone else. That, I would've rejected as too minor, but edits are rather subjective; some will allow them, some won't. – Frank Aug 30 '14 at 23:21
2

Kodama, thank you for taking the time to selflessly improving another user's answer. I think the problem here, if there is any, is that you are copy-pasting a very significant portion of the original webpage, and that's quite the iffy thing from a copyright standpoint.

You would do better to try and summarize the link contents in your own words.

  • If that's the problem (and I don't really think it is), then we need to rollback the current edit, because that's all it is. – Frank Aug 31 '14 at 14:07
  • Thanks for your answer, I forgot to respond. I didn't try to summarize the link content because I found it to be more helpful and clear the way it was in the original as it was already an FAQ excerpt. Anyway, I was just wondering what I had done wrong. – Kodama Sep 16 '14 at 14:08
  • Is it really like Frank says and there are no rules for approving edits and it all just comes down to personal preference? Because with only two needed reviewers that easily leads to rejection and the only way to go if I feel my edit was justified seems to be to try again and hope to get other reviewers that think more like myself. For example, the asker of the question edited the same content into the answer, only without the Vita information, and it was approved by both reviewers. – Kodama Sep 16 '14 at 14:11
  • 1
    @Kodama By raising attention to the edit, you've gotten a lot more than 2 couple of eyes to your edit :) Also, congratulations on making it to 2k! – badp Sep 16 '14 at 14:41
  • Every time we ask users to vote, it's going to be a judgement call. If we could construct a mathematical formula that said without fail if an edit is worthy or not, we'd use that instead. So yeah, sometimes, you might be able to bruteforce your way by trying enough. That's a necessary evil. – badp Sep 16 '14 at 14:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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