Is there a way to get edit feedback?

Question

Apparently so many of my edits have been rejected that I must now wait a week before I may try again. All my edits have been sincere attempts at improving the quality of the site.

Question: Is there a way for a user getting rejected, to get feedback? Getting "punished" with a weeks wait isn't going to improve quality by it self, since it can be hard to guess why edits where rejected.

Answer 1

If you look at your activity page ("suggestions" sub-tab), you will notice there is a list of suggested edits you have done; if you click on the "suggested edit" link, you will see the details about the suggested edits, including (for rejected edits) the rejecting reason, something similar to:

The "edit is too minor" is generally the rejecting reason. If you are going to edit a post, you should edit as much as possible of that edit, to avoid somebody else needs to edit again that same posts. The reason is said in this answer:

1.You can do better, always. The edit suggestion system teaches you how to edit, and editing more that just one typo is a good practice.

2. Processing edit suggestions is not a free process, it cost eyes, distraction and time. We want quality in the queue, so high standards is a good first step.

The last point is also the reason why who don't have the privilege of editing any post is not able to suggest a single character edit.

To what reported in that answer, I will add that posts edited from 5 different users, or edited 10 times by the OP, are transformed in Community Wiki automatically. This is another reason for making the edits more substantial, and possibly resolve every issue present in the post being edited.

When you see that the suggested edit has been approved from Community, it means the suggested edit has been improved, which means there was probably something else that should have been edited.

Answer 2

I just ran (again) in a variation of the request to get feedback after a suggested edit is rejected: https://drupal.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/50982 . My suggestion was about the EMPTY tag "log", and this is what I suggested:

Many things (events) are happening in a Drupal website. Drupal creates an audit trail of all kinds of events, via all sorts of 'log' records created by Drupal, or by the webserver used in combination with Drupal. Authorised users (like admin) can use these log records for various purposes.

Use this tag for questions about various types of logging (log records) in Drupal, and for uses cases, best practices, etc about them.

With all respect for many (except a few) of the reviewers, "I" believe that despite the review of "Text is completely off the mark", it is for sure not "completely" of the mark.

What I think is frustrating is that:

1. You don't get an answer to question likes "Why does that reviewer say/think so?". Getting an answer to that would for sure help to "learn from mistakes".
2. Many reviewers seem to forget that there are people (like me) which did-not-learn-english-on-their-mother's-knee ... and don't seem to realise that I even have problems in understanding what "off the mark" actually means.
3. Their seems to not be any kind of escalation procedure, or something like asking for a 2nd or 3rd opinion (at least I am not aware of it so far). Anybody out there who wants to give "their" opinion about my suggested edit (in the quote above)? E.g. by commenting to my answer here (I don't care about getting "votes" via this reply, use whatever will not trigger any "bonus"-whatever things for me).
4. If I spend like 1 hour in figuring out what a specific (EMPTY!) tag is about (by looking at quite a lot of questions with that tag), and if I then do the effort to suggest a tag description / excerpt, in which I TRY to summarise (during another 30 mins or so) what all those questions seem to be about, wouldn't you think that "my" suggestion is way more valuable then an EMPTY (repeat: EMPTY) tag description? Even if it is still incomplete, or even if it maybe contains phrasing that needs further enhancements? If all my efforts I put in it then get destroyed with such a "Text is completely off the mark", then I perceive that as an insult, simple as that. And instead of wasting my time as described above, I better start "documenting the tags that I'm interested in" somewhere else (outside of SE). so that i can refer to it again next time I wonder what that (probably still empty) tag was about.
5. Because of similar rejections in the recent days, I start to get the impression that there are various types of reviewers, and the more points/badges/whatever they have, the more likely it is that if they do a review of your suggestion, it gets rejected more or less without really digesting what the suggestion was. All that seems to count (= 'my' current impression ...) is like "how can I do as much reviews as possible" (which I assume will result in more points/badges/whatever for ... them). A possible work around I'm considering, is to start submitting my suggestions at times that (hopefully) the ones I want to avoid are away/asleep. Let's be serious, that can't be the purpose of all this, right?

Edit about 5: because of the extra comment/reply/clarification from the reviewer, I no langer have the impression about what I wrote in 5 (but prefer to leave the bullet in here to illustrate the possible impact when reviewers make such mistakes, assuming it is OK to leave this bullet included for 'documentation purposes')

Answer 3

Pierre.Vriens, mea culpa.

I am the one who wrote "Text is completely off the mark", and I am sorry. Worse - I've done it to you again (and AFAIK, there is no way to retract a mistaken vote). The idiomatic phrase "off the mark" means "not exactly right". Just to make things clear: I do not think your tag wiki excerpt is "off the mark" when applied to the log tag.

Why does that reviewer say/think so?

I was confused. I mistakenly believed that you were trying to create a tag wiki excerpt for the markdown tag. I now realize you were trying to create a tag wiki excerpt for the log tag.

This is not an attempt to justify the mistake - I should have paid more attention - this is just to explain why this happened. Below is a screen shot of how the review screen look to the reviewer. The word "markdown" appears on top, in a fairly large type, and in a box on shaded background just like a tag. I mistakenly believed that this was the tag. Further down, in smaller type, and with a much lighter shaded background, is the word "log". This is actually the tag, and I overlooked it.

Again, sorry for the rejection and the confusing comment left behind. But at least, now you know why.