-5

Many of my tag edit suggestions are rejected. Despite the fact that some of them are correctly judged, for many of those rejections I can not find any good reason. Could you please explain your reasons for rejecting some of them?

  • education
    What is the reason that the tag edit is rejected because of incorrectness and minor edit? Which tag excerpt is better? The previous five word excerpt or the suggested one with two exact sentences that address the questions under the tag?

  • homework
    Where is incorrectness in my edits?

  • repository; recommendation-letter
    Looking at the proposed edits to these two tags, I can not understand why that edit is too minor; why the suggested edit is not substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post. The question here is was the previous tag better than the suggested one?! I don't think so.

  • publishing
    Why do we need the exact copy and paste of excerpts and wiki notes? The reader goes to the excerpt and reads the exacet copy of the wiki. I think the excerpt should be deleted and give the chance to the tag to be seen and better excerpts be provided to it. Exact copy and pasting was useless so the excerpt was deleted.

  • poster
    In this question, why do we need to always have the word "Questions about..." or "Queries about..." every body know that this site is a Q&A website. The only use of excerpts are to give a clue to the reader that what is being questioned. So, those extra words are omitted.

  • nsf
    in this tag, the complete information is written in the wiki, so in the excerpt we only need to attract the reader's attention to the abbreviation of NSF, why do we have extra information in the excerpt?

4

I think there are two issues at play here:

  • None of the above edits are substantial. They are all adding very general, basic knowledge, which doesn't really serve to add anything to the page.
  • For some of the edits there seems to be a language barrier as well. The education and reference letter ones specifically stand out to me as containing awkward verbiage and grammar.
  • For the NSF tag specifically, you seem to have removed useful information. Not sure why you did that.

As with other types of edits, tag edit should substantially improve the content. Wordsmithing and/or minor changes will likely not pass the bar as a useful edit.

  • We should compare the suggested edits with the previous ones; as if they are adding something to a very basic excerpt or they are editing a good one. Specifically, in the education, what's the use of previous excerpt "General questions on higher education"? Or exact copy/paste of the wiki text, or constantly using the "Questions about...". According to this question, there are good tags in this site – Enthusiastic Engineer Jul 15 '14 at 20:31
  • 1
    @Parsa Even if the previous tag wiki was not great, if you are not significantly improving it you shouldn't edit it. Otherwise we would waste a lot of time reviewing edits that change a few words without making anything better. – ff524 Jul 15 '14 at 20:33
  • Reviewing edits that are trying to improve the structure and punctuation of a tag is not waste of time at all. As good instance of tag excerpts, Stack Overflow has perfect tags, none of the excerpts in the Academia similar to those tags. By such rejections, the tags will never be improved anyway. – Enthusiastic Engineer Jul 15 '14 at 20:45
  • 1
    @Parsa the idea is that you should not make edits only for minor improvements, since they take time and resources to review. You should make "minor" improvements when you anyways are also making "major" improvements. That's the site policy. – ff524 Jul 15 '14 at 20:47
  • I am not convinced at all. I repeat, just compare tags in Stack Overflow web site and Academia. Most of the tags in academia are too basic. Most of such minor edits will significantly improve the existing good tags on this site. – Enthusiastic Engineer Jul 15 '14 at 20:51
  • @Parsa - Just because an edit was approved doesn't mean it should have been approved. If you will improve them, make it substantial. – eykanal Jul 15 '14 at 20:52
  • @eykanal I agree and that's why I am saying the previous tags should be reviewed; even minor edits. – Enthusiastic Engineer Jul 15 '14 at 20:53
  • @eykanal all the suggested edits in the tags mentioned in the question are substantial (as the previous ones are not comparable to the style of the tags in other websites on StackExchange). As it is obvious, they are rejected by preference of the moderator. – Enthusiastic Engineer Jul 15 '14 at 21:06
  • @Parsa - Moved discussion to Academia Chat. – eykanal Jul 15 '14 at 21:55
2

I rejected education because the questions in this tag (and in general, the word education) are not about "period of time in a person's life when he attends academic institutes." They are about education as "the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction" (Merriam Webster's definition). Therefore, the suggested edit is incorrect.

Other edits were rejected because they did not constitute a substantive improvement (as eykanal explained). (It shows that I rejected homework for being incorrect, but I meant to reject it for being minor; just clicked the wrong button.)

The criteria I apply for deciding whether an edit is a "substantive improvement" or not is as follows:

  • Is the new tag excerpt/wiki better than the old one at helping users understand how/when to use the tag? Then accept.
  • Does the new tag excerpt/wiki fix a major error? (Not just a matter of style, but something that is actually not correct). Then accept.
  • Else, reject.

The other edits you list did not meet either of the criteria for being a "substantive improvement," and so they were rejected for being "minor."

Finally, some edits were rejected because they remove useful information. I'm not sure why you would do that. If you think the information could be better, then improve it, don't just remove it.

You must log in to answer this question.

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