Return to Question

An edit I proposed was turned down with this explanation: "edit did not correct critical issues with the post". After revisiting the post, I saw that the individual (other user listed as "community") who felt my edit was not beneficial, changed only the way in which a link was displayed and deleted the word "blender", but included the edits I made.

If you look closely, you can see that we both missed correcting the last word of the post. I feel this speaks to a need of leniency for rejected edits, as even reviewers miss mistakes.

My edit:

Other user's edit:

Without the edits I made, the question is uncomfortable to read. If I hadn't caught the mistakes, the question would have had less traffic, since the natural inclination is to steer away from an uncomfortable read.

Since both edits are useful, wouldn't it make most sense to award partial credit? Maybe one point instead of two? Or perhaps, instead of a rejected edit: the edit is accepted and no points are awarded, but the user receives a warning with synthetic rejection reason, and a link to guidelines? In this way, the user is not discouraged but learns for next time.

In addition, I almost edited the post to include a word-link as well, but decided against it since I felt my edit might be rejected for changing redundant features. This brings me to my second question:

Prior to editing, I did a search to find some guidelines, (since I couldn't find any on my home page), and gathered an idea of beneficial editing. However, none of the pages I read suggested changing the way in which a link is displayed. I've edited over a dozen questions since then, and every time I missed seeing the helpful sidebar (displayed while editing) with guidelines for editing. I now realize this is because my attention is immediately drawn to the post in need of editing, since my mind is holding the editing ideas as the page loads.

To remedy this, wouldn't it make most sense to have a "Guidelines for Editing" page which can be accessed on a user's homepage? I feel not everyone will know to look for the sidebar while editing, as it did not occur to me.

My primary question is my first question though, since I feel not all users would struggle with noticing the sidebar while editing.

An edit I proposed was turned down with this explanation: "edit did not correct critical issues with the post". After revisiting the post, I saw that the individual (other user listed as "community") who felt my edit was not beneficial, changed only the way in which a link was displayed and deleted the word "blender", but included the edits I made.

If you look closely, you can see we both missed correcting the last word of the post. I feel this speaks to a need of leniency for rejected edits, as even reviewers miss mistakes.

My edit:

Other user's edit:

Without the edits I made, the question is uncomfortable to read. If I hadn't caught the mistakes, the question would have had less traffic, since the natural inclination is to steer away from an uncomfortable read.

Since both edits are useful, wouldn't it make most sense to award partial credit? Maybe one point instead of two? Or perhaps, instead of a rejected edit: the edit is accepted and no points are awarded, but the user receives a warning with synthetic rejection reason, and a link to guidelines? In this way, the user is not discouraged but learns for next time.

In addition, I almost edited the post to include a word-link as well, but decided against it since I felt my edit might be rejected for changing redundant features. This brings me to my second question:

Prior to editing, I did a search to find some guidelines, (since I couldn't find any on my home page), and gathered an idea of beneficial editing. However, none of the pages I read suggested changing the way in which a link is displayed. I've edited over a dozen questions since then, and every time I missed seeing the helpful sidebar (displayed while editing) with guidelines for editing. I now realize this is because my attention is immediately drawn to the post in need of editing, since my mind is holding the editing ideas as the page loads.

To remedy this, wouldn't it make most sense to have a "Guidelines for Editing" page which can be accessed on a user's homepage? I feel not everyone will know to look for the sidebar while editing, as it did not occur to me.

My primary question is my first question though, since I feel not all users would struggle with noticing the sidebar while editing.

An edit I proposed was turned down with this explanation: "edit did not correct critical issues with the post". After revisiting the post, I saw that the individual (other user listed as "community") who felt my edit was not beneficial, changed only the way in which a link was displayed and deleted the word "blender", but included the edits I made.

My edit:

Other user's edit:

Without the edits I made, the question is uncomfortable to read. If I hadn't caught the mistakes, the question would have had less traffic, since the natural inclination is to steer away from an uncomfortable read.

Since both edits are useful, wouldn't it make most sense to award partial credit? Maybe one point instead of two? Or perhaps, instead of a rejected edit: the edit is accepted and no points are awarded, but the user receives a warning with synthetic rejection reason, and a link to guidelines? In this way, the user is not discouraged but learns for next time.

In addition, I almost edited the post to include a word-link as well, but decided against it since I felt my edit might be rejected for changing redundant features. This brings me to my second question:

Prior to editing, I did a search to find some guidelines, (since I couldn't find any on my home page), and gathered an idea of beneficial editing. However, none of the pages I read suggested changing the way in which a link is displayed. I've edited over a dozen questions since then, and every time I missed seeing the helpful sidebar (displayed while editing) with guidelines for editing. I now realize this is because my attention is immediately drawn to the post in need of editing, since my mind is holding the editing ideas as the page loads.

To remedy this, wouldn't it make most sense to have a "Guidelines for Editing" page which can be accessed on a user's homepage? I feel not everyone will know to look for the sidebar while editing, as it did not occur to me.

My primary question is my first question though, since I feel not all users would struggle with noticing the sidebar while editing.

An edit I proposed was turned down with this explanation: "edit did not correct critical issues with the post". After revisiting the post, I saw that the individual (other user listed as "community") who felt my edit was not beneficial, changed only the way in which a link was displayed and deleted the word "blender", but included the edits I made.

If you look closely, you can see that we both missed correcting the last word of the post. I feel this speaks to a need of leniency for rejected edits, as even reviewers miss mistakes.

My edit:

Other user's edit:

Without the edits I made, the question is uncomfortable to read. If I hadn't caught the mistakes, the question would have had less traffic, since the natural inclination is to steer away from an uncomfortable read.

Since both edits are useful, wouldn't it make most sense to award partial credit? Maybe one point instead of two? Or perhaps, instead of a rejected edit: the edit is accepted and no points are awarded, but the user receives a warning with synthetic rejection reason, and a link to guidelines? In this way, the user is not discouraged but learns for next time.

In addition, I almost edited the post to include a word-link as well, but decided against it since I felt my edit might be rejected for changing redundant features. This brings me to my second question:

Prior to editing, I did a search to find some guidelines, (since I couldn't find any on my home page), and gathered an idea of beneficial editing. However, none of the pages I read suggested changing the way in which a link is displayed. I've edited over a dozen questions since then, and every time I missed seeing the helpful sidebar (displayed while editing) with guidelines for editing. I now realize this is because my attention is immediately drawn to the post in need of editing, since my mind is holding the editing ideas as the page loads.

To remedy this, wouldn't it make most sense to have a "Guidelines for Editing" page which can be accessed on a user's homepage? I feel not everyone will know to look for the sidebar while editing, as it did not occur to me.

My primary question is my first question though, since I feel not all users would struggle with noticing the sidebar while editing.

An edit I proposed was turned down with this explanation: "edit did not correct critical issues with the post". After revisiting the post, I saw that the individual (other user listed as "community") who felt my edit was not beneficial, changed only the way in which a link was displayed and deleted the word "blender", but included the edits I made.

My edit:

Other user's edit:

Without the edits I made, the question is uncomfortable to read. If I hadn't caught the mistakes, the question would have had less traffic, since the natural inclination is to steer away from an uncomfortable read.

Since both edits are useful, wouldn't it make most sense to award partial credit? Possibly a point to each user? So one user does not take credit for the work of two people. Or perhaps, instead of a rejected edit: the edit is accepted and no points are awarded, but the user receives a warning with synthetic rejection reason, and a link to guidelines? In this way, the user is not discouraged but learns for next time.

In addition, I almost edited the post to include a word-link as well, but decided against it since I felt my edit might be rejected for changing redundant features. This brings me to my second question:

Prior to editing, I did a search to find some guidelines, (since I couldn't find any on my home page), and gathered an idea of beneficial editing. However, none of the pages I read suggested changing the way in which a link is displayed. I've edited over a dozen questions since then, and every time I missed seeing the helpful sidebar (displayed while editing) with guidelines for editing. I now realize this is because my attention is immediately drawn to the post in need of editing, since my mind is holding the editing ideas as the page loads.

To remedy this, wouldn't it make most sense to have a "Guidelines for Editing" page which can be accessed on a user's homepage? I feel not everyone will know to look for it while editing, as it did not occur to me.

My primary question is my first question though, since I feel not all users would struggle with noticing the sidebar while editing.

An edit I proposed was turned down with this explanation: "edit did not correct critical issues with the post". After revisiting the post, I saw that the individual (other user listed as "community") who felt my edit was not beneficial, changed only the way in which a link was displayed and deleted the word "blender", but included the edits I made.

My edit:

Other user's edit:

Without the edits I made, the question is uncomfortable to read. If I hadn't caught the mistakes, the question would have had less traffic, since the natural inclination is to steer away from an uncomfortable read.

Since both edits are useful, wouldn't it make most sense to award partial credit? Maybe one point instead of two? Or perhaps, instead of a rejected edit: the edit is accepted and no points are awarded, but the user receives a warning with synthetic rejection reason, and a link to guidelines? In this way, the user is not discouraged but learns for next time.

In addition, I almost edited the post to include a word-link as well, but decided against it since I felt my edit might be rejected for changing redundant features. This brings me to my second question:

Prior to editing, I did a search to find some guidelines, (since I couldn't find any on my home page), and gathered an idea of beneficial editing. However, none of the pages I read suggested changing the way in which a link is displayed. I've edited over a dozen questions since then, and every time I missed seeing the helpful sidebar (displayed while editing) with guidelines for editing. I now realize this is because my attention is immediately drawn to the post in need of editing, since my mind is holding the editing ideas as the page loads.

To remedy this, wouldn't it make most sense to have a "Guidelines for Editing" page which can be accessed on a user's homepage? I feel not everyone will know to look for the sidebar while editing, as it did not occur to me.

My primary question is my first question though, since I feel not all users would struggle with noticing the sidebar while editing.