8

A post had broken Markdown, as follows:

[link one][1] and [link two][1]

  [1]: https://example.com/one

  [2]: https://example.com/two

See the flaw? [link two][1], means that both links are in fact to link one.

This is a problem. So I fixed it, also correcting some spelling errors.

Inexplicably, that suggested edit was rejected. Why?

(I used labelled link references rather than just [1] and [2], just to make it more obvious what the fix was.)

| |
  • 2
    We are all human sans one or two of us. ;-) Let's just say we were drunk?? For the remainder, we were flinging feces at each other. Mistakes are made. Clearly this is one of those cases. Your edits, I assume not having seen them, are good and you should be encouraged to continue. As well, I personally want to Thank You for the edit and then bringing the problem to our attention. When we sober up and wash off, I am sure we will try harder! Cheers!! – closetnoc Feb 15 '16 at 20:25
  • 2
    It was likely just the labelled link references, which we typically don't see used on this site. Coming from a new user (note this was 10 months back), the moderator likely assumed it introduced some harm to the post, which is something we're pretty vigilant about. You've done some great edits here which are really appreciated, so please don't let that influence you from doing more in the future! – dan Feb 18 '16 at 1:59
5

I agree, it looks like a case of mistaken rejection!

The "important" edit, of correcting the link, is physically a very small one so it perhaps got missed. You made other (more trivial, but physically larger) edits to the spelling/grammar, and stated this first in the review comment.

I think the spelling/grammar edits were still valid (and probably required in order to exceed the minimum edit limit), but I imagine it was rejected on this, rather than the link correction, which I guess was overlooked.

(Wow, that edit was over 10 months ago!)

| |
5

I've never seen somebody using [go] and [so] style anchor annotations in the wiki syntax. My guess is that the person reviewing it didn't see that one of those was actually correcting a link. On first glance it looks only like a "improvement" of the style of wiki markup.

When editing posts it helps clarity if you only change what you need to change.

[link one][1] and [link two][2]

  [1]: https://example.com/one

  [2]: https://example.com/two

Would be a clearer edit than

[link one][so] and [link two][go]

  [so]: https://example.com/one

  [go]: https://example.com/two

We often see spammers try to edit links in tricky ways. When somebody touches links in a post, I often am much more leery about approving the edit.

Clearly your edit is fine and should have been approved, but not approving it looks like a fairly easy mistake to make given the circumstances.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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