6

I submitted a proposed edit to this question but one of the reviewers said that my edit 'deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner.' This is yet pending approval but, I'm having a hard time trying to see how my edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Here is my edit (right side) compared to the original answer (left side).enter image description here

I consulted the help center and in one of the reasons given on when to edit, it is stated that you can edit 'To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages,' which is what I just did. Since at the time the answer was posted no information regarding how Reiner, Annie and Bertholt acquired titan shifter abilities or where this came from was revealed yet and since this information is now available at later chapters, I just revised that part to state how they acquired titan shifter abilities and where this came from.

Also, the question was asking how titans became humans so it is only natural to include the part on how Ymir was the first titan, how her powers were eventually divided and passed down until the time the events in the manga happened. As of now, I cannot see how this deviates the original intent of the post because as far as I know, the post's intent was to provide information on how humans became titans, and my proposed edit just adds additional facts regarding the subject and links to additional resources about the Nine Titans and the like.

I'm not angry that my edit was rejected by a reviewer (some of my edits were rejected before and I realized my mistakes; this is just pending so this may still be approved). I just want to understand why the reviewer was able to give this comment so that I'll be able to improve future edits I'm going to make :)

UPDATE: This was rejected a long time ago and I'm still not sure why. Another pending edit of mine was also rejected by one reviewer, as shown below. enter image description here

I'm still as confused as I was when I first posted this question. '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.' How does this not make it 'easier to read' when I just corrected minor grammatical mistakes? How does it not make it easier to find or accessible? How does it not make it 'more accurate' when Makarov's name was corrected from the wrongly-spelled 'Makorav'? How is it superfluous when the point of editing posts is to correct any mistakes made, if there are any? Finally, how does it even 'harm readability' when what a person is doing is just correcting grammar and wrong spellings?

| |
5

I'm pretty sure I'm one of the people who rejected your first edit (and if I didn't, I would have), so I'll give me two cents on it. While your goal may have been to maintain the author's original intent, you added enough new information that you could have just written a new post. Instead, you basically just grafted that new post into the current post through an edit.

My suggestion is that, in a case like this, you first comment on the post telling them where the new information is (in this case, new chapters) and suggesting that they add it. That way, you give the original author a way to add the information while ensuring that their original intent is maintained. Given that you seem to have basically gotten rid of one of the three non-quote paragraphs and wrote two paragraphs, it's hard to tell how well you maintained the original intent.

In regards to your other suggested edit, while fixing the spelling of the person's name is definitely helpful, one of the other edits you made was to change the post from being in entirely present tense to being partially in present tense and partially in past tense. I didn't reject this edit, but in my view that change is not helpful or even correct.

| |
  • The problem I see with just adding comments is that the user who already posted the answer is already inactive. It was stated in the rules that an edit can be made to add additional information. No clear restrictions were given. I was also expecting that the reviewer knew well enough about the manga to know that the paragraph I erased contains outdated information. My question still stands: How did it deviate from the original intent when the intent was to give information regarding how humans become titans? (Continued below) – W. Are Nov 24 '18 at 15:14
  • Regarding the other edit, I don't see how changing it to past tense is a problem seeing as the events already happened in the manga. Regarding the first sentence, I forgot to change that to past tense too, but a reviewer can edit a proposed edit to correct this. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the use of past or present tenses a part of grammar? (Continued below) – W. Are Nov 24 '18 at 15:16
  • 1
    Re: the first one, you not only added a significant amount of additional information but also removed something like a third of the existing information. Whether or not it was outdated, that old information was the author's original intent. You could have just as easily made a new post that referenced the original post and given this new information without removing all of that information from the original post. – kuwaly Nov 24 '18 at 15:25
  • '...that old information was the author's original intent.' I'm more confused than ever. When someone answers a question like: How did humans become titans?, the intent of the person answering should always be to show how humans become titans, and this was clear in that person's answer. So how does my intent deviate from the original author? I added information that, personally, does not need a new post seeing as the original person who answered already discussed most of them. This makes the question and answer thread more cleaner than repeating information already mentioned by another. – W. Are Nov 24 '18 at 15:31
  • 1
    My interpretation of "original intent" is that it goes beyond just the intent of answering the question and goes into the specific answer that they intended to give. If we went just on your interpretation, edits could theoretically change an answer to anything as long as it apparently answered the question, even if it wasn't based on what the original author intended. A yes could be changed to a no because they're both intended to answer the question. – kuwaly Nov 24 '18 at 15:37
  • But seeing as I did not changed it from a 'yes' to a 'no', I still don't think the edit I made requires a separate post that says 'you see that other answer? that's outdated. Here's the updated information...' The post has only 1 possible answer. It is not a yes or no question nor a question that has multiple possible answers because there was only one explanation as to how humans became titans. Also, I thought that updating information is okay since it is mentioned in the guidelines for editing a post. – W. Are Nov 24 '18 at 15:43
  • 1
    @W.Are: even if there is one possible answer in the strictest sense, there may still be multiple ways to frame the problem. As with kuwaly, my interpretation is that intent is also an issue of the specific answer or perspective. The answers on this Meta.SE post and this Meta.SE answer kind of get at the logic behind it, I think. – Maroon Nov 26 '18 at 19:49
  • @Maroon Thanks for links! I read them and I seem to understand a bit about kuwaly's point. I'll keep this in mind. kuwaly, sorry if I seem rude or something. I'm just trying to clarify since I honestly was confused when you tried explaining your point :) – W. Are Nov 26 '18 at 19:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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