1

I noticed for a long time that as a whole, this site needs to improve how we review suggested edits.

This is one example from a legion I could choose from; it's not intended to call out an individual, as much as to illustrate what we absolutely should reject.

Consider this suggested edit:

bad reviews

Let's talk about what is good or bad about that edit suggestion.

1

Let's start with what is good:

  • The suggested edit attempts to reword so the post is more clear

The bad:

  • The edit changes the post from "what qos testing standards" to "what qos tools or methodologies are there?" without consulting the author regarding the changes he made. This falls into the category of: [the edit] deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner.

The bad outweighs the good. Please do not approve edits like this; we have two choices in that situation:

  • Reject the edit
  • Edit the suggested edit to remove the radical change to the question
-1

It is clear based on context that tools are what he is asking for (See "if such things exist, where can I find them, which is the organisations that has made them" so the way I change the question is clarifying it."). The problem is that the OP's English is not so good, so some reading between the lines is needed.

Furthermore, if the OP believes that this is more aligned with what he is asking for (which I believe it is based on his follow up comment,) who are you to dictate to the OP his own intent? Therefore, let the OP determine whether the edit is approved or rejected or allow him to revise it further.

2
  • If the OP approved your edit, you might have a point, but he rejected it. Furthermore, you seem to project meaning into the question without any supporting evidence at all. Nowhere in the question was a tool mentioned; he only asked for standards. Even if he asked for tools, that is still off topic – This Mar 10 '15 at 16:17
  • As for dictating the OP's intent, that's exactly what I object to. Most edits on this site are not approved by the OP, and thus the concerns I am expressing in the meta question. People other than the OP should not significantly modify the meaning of the question – This Mar 10 '15 at 16:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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