3

I've just been presented with an edit review that adds a completely new method of solving the problem to an answer (which already provides several different methods.)

It seems to me that I need to reject this edit, and suggest that it instead be posted as an answer, but there doesn't appear to be any way of doing so. These are the reasons I can give for rejecting:

  • spam or vandalism This edit defaces the post in order to promote a product or service, or is deliberately destructive.

    The edit is clearly not spam.

  • no improvement whatsoever This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

    There is an improvement: there is now an extra way to solve the problem (which offers some advantages over the existing efforts).

  • clearly conflicts with author's intent This 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.

    I guess this is the closest: You could argue that it sort of conflicts with the author's intent in that they intended to write an answer that offers three solutions and now there is a fourth.

    But if I were the author of the edit and I received a rejection with this reason, I would be pretty confused as to what I had done wrong.

  • attempt to reply This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.

    I think the edit should have been written as an answer, but it's definitely not an attempt to reply to the original answer's author.

  • causes harm

    The edit clearly doesn't cause harm, but this is the only option where I actually get to provide a reason.

What's the best way to approach this edit review?

4

I presume you're talking about this suggested edit? I saw it earlier today as well, and I just clicked skip. The author of the question is still active on the site, and they can decide what to do with the suggestion. This is my preference in general for edits that are beyond the trivial (e.g. fixing typos etc.) They don't need me to decide that for them.

If the author isn't active, then "clearly conflicts with author's intent" is probably the best option. It's not perfect, and you can't @ping these users. It is what it is.

  • Seems sensible. Thanks! – Rich Sep 9 '19 at 9:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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