Timeline for Is there a way to force the review of a suggested edit?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2013 at 14:56 | comment | added | Wolf | @rolfl thanks for the clarifying example. I'll try to improve my edit comments. | |
| Nov 28, 2013 at 14:30 | comment | added | rolfl | @Wolf - no, you don't have to, but a comment saying corrected problem number, added link is more useful than It's about Problem #32, not #34 ... because, the change from 34 to 32 is obvious, but the link is not ... ;-) | |
| Nov 28, 2013 at 13:30 | comment | added | Wolf | @rolfl does this mean, I have to tell the change itself in the edit comment? I wasn't aware of this, because that wouldn't be a help for me (provided that the changes are shown by the software - as I know it from, say, Wikipedia). | |
| Nov 28, 2013 at 12:50 | comment | added | rolfl | @Wolf editors are often a PITA (like you... ;-) ) and leave comments that don't help. My pet peeve is people (like you) who add/change links but do not say what and why in the comment, or people who add tags and make other small changes to the text, but don't mention the tag change in the comment. IMHO, no link or tag edits are minor, and they are the hardest things to 'spot' in an edit review | |
| Nov 28, 2013 at 12:45 | comment | added | Wolf | @rolfl and this means, that they sometimes don't give much on the edit comment? | |
| Nov 28, 2013 at 12:43 | comment | added | rolfl | @Wolf - the links work in the edit review window, but there are multiple displays, one display shows the way the edit visually looks compared to before, and this is great for all the 'fixed formatting' edits that come through. The links are available there, but because of the change, there is highlighting on the link that 'blends it in' to the other changes. The other view allows you to see the markup changes, and the links there are obvious, but not-clickable. Most people review from the 'how it looks' perspective | |
| Nov 28, 2013 at 12:42 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg | @Wolf Now I see that you included a link to Problem 32. Sorry, didn't see that before. I do however think that it is better to first post a comment about such "issues" with a question | |
| Nov 28, 2013 at 12:41 | comment | added | Wolf | @SimonAndréForsberg the links are really invisible? | |
| Nov 28, 2013 at 12:36 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg | I agree that too minor perhaps wasn't the best rejection reason, I mostly miss the links to back the edit. If I would have seen a link to the problems 32 and 34, I would have checked the links and decided whether or not it was a correct edit. | |
| Nov 28, 2013 at 12:35 | comment | added | Wolf | Thanks, this is just my idea of the minor-major relation. But it may be better style in this very case to suggest the change via comment. | |
| Nov 28, 2013 at 12:35 | comment | added | rolfl | I approved as well, for the same reasons. | |
| Nov 28, 2013 at 12:32 | history | answered | MattDavey | CC BY-SA 3.0 |