There is a simple grammatical error in an answer that I was trying to fix. Unfortunately, it only involved modifying 3 characters. So, I quickly lightly copy-edited the remainder of the answer making 2 other minor changes.

The edit suggestion was than quickly rejected. Is there any way to just tell the reviewer / author the issue, so he can fix himself if he prefers?



I rejected your edit to my post because I thought the only thing worth changing was deleting the additional is in the first sentence; the other changes you suggested were not what I wanted to say.

If this happens again, the easiest thing to do is use the comments to question the author about the particular choice of language or blatant errors.

On a slightly related note, the StackExchange team have decided to change the canned responses for rejecting edits. Sadly, the too minor category (which I would have used) has been replaced with no improvement whatsoever. You can read more about it here. I personally do not like the language used (it seems rather confrontational), but it's what reviewers have to deal with.

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for this response. I never would have guessed that the rejection language was canned; I find it to be very confrontational. All, I wanted to do was remove the extra 'is', but it wouldn't let me without making additional edits. My thinking on the last edit was just to remove the redundancy in the word 'First'. But, again I would have never made that edit if I hadn't been forced to, in order to correct a simple typo. $\endgroup$ – aepryus Oct 16 '14 at 2:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @aepryus That extra is is definitely a sore thumb once you see it, but it's not really a reason to bump the post up the front page. That's why the edit threshold (and 'too minor' reject reason) exists - we don't want to flood the front page with typo corrections. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Oct 16 '14 at 14:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty: too minor does not exist anymore. See the link I provided in the body. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Oct 16 '14 at 14:15
  • $\begingroup$ I know. But the same applies for the one you did use. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Oct 16 '14 at 14:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty I realize there are probably reasons behind the too minor restriction, but I suspect there is a better way of dealing with it. For example, if an edit fails to pass the 'too minor' threshold; accept the edit, but don't award points and don't bump the post. Beyond that, the reject language should really be toned down. Also, it would have been helpful to be able to comment on the rejection itself, rather than hoping that the reviewer sees my post on Meta. $\endgroup$ – aepryus Oct 16 '14 at 14:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty: And that's where I disagree. The new rejection reason is unreasonably dispiriting and does not convey the same message that the edit was too minor, it berates the person for making a failed attempt at an edit. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Oct 16 '14 at 14:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ See these and related posts for such proposals on the mother meta; simply put, there are good reasons why that wouldn't work. To comment on the new close reasons, the best venue is this mother meta answer, the blog announcement, or as a question on the mother meta. This is something that impacts all sites and is best handled there $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Oct 16 '14 at 14:35

You must log in to answer this question.

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