-4
$\begingroup$

My opinion of this stack exchange system has never been good, I will never have a good opinion of this system, for many reasons, starting because it is a heater farm, but this ... !!! This is already a mockery, because I do not think that the user who reissues a question you just edited and re-edits the same question with your same corrections and even the same reference line of why you edited the question, sounds like plajio , as I have said

enter image description here enter image description here

Ignorance of the use of bold letters to emphasize keywords in the text

Google search use bold in text

enter image description here

Bold or italic—think of them as mutually exclusive. That is the first rule.

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

First off please calm down. There can never be rational and useful discussion when people are shouting about the site being full of haters.

It sounds like you already made up your mind about this site (never good, full of haters, a mockery etc.) Thing I'm curious about is if you really do not like this site as much as it seams why keep using it?
Maybe because you like many of us do see the value of it, and in spite of all the built up factious walls of hate still want to help the site.

Your rejected edits

Duarte's answer is spot on as to why your edits are getting rejected. In nearly all cases changing a word or words to bold will be rejected.

As to your using "bold letters to emphasize keywords" lets read from the page you linked:

The second rule is to use bold and italic as little as possible. They are tools for emphasis. But if everything is emphasized, then nothing is emphasized.

https://practicaltypography.com/bold-or-italic.html

Your edit changed that question so that 33% of the words were formatted. I'd not call that "as little as possible."

This edit

What happened on the suggested edit you have pictured in your question is this:

  1. You suggested it
  2. The edit enters the suggested edit review queue. (take two votes to approve, two to)
  3. rjg was the first to review it.
  4. Still in the review Sazerac edited your suggested edit. Doing such in this case removes your suggested edit from the queue and the comunity bot comes in with the approve vote.

The reason for the same edit reason (not reference line) is because Sazerac did not change it (its not plagiarism). When reviewing in the suggested edit queue the edit reason is already populated with the reason from the edit you are reviewing.

Really there is nothing odd going on here. Sazerac edited your edit because he felt that the italics were worth keeping, but removed all the bold. You should be happy that he took the time to improve your edit, instead of simply clicking the reject button.

So in the end you get two rep, all bent out of shape, a meta post where hopefully you learn something, and now maybe you know why your edits are being rejected - and not by haters.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

Thanks for posting here and bringing up the issue.

It has come to our attention that many of your edits are limited to adding scattered bold formatting to random fragments of text.

Bold formatting is often used for emphasis, highlighting or calling attention to important parts of text. It should be used sparingly, if everything is bold then the effect is lost because nothing gets emphasized.

We know what bold formatting is and how to use it. Your edits however seem to overuse it on seemingly unimportant or random parts of text, they also don't improve the original post in any meaningful way, make them clearer or easier to read.

See the rules when to edit a question, edits should generally be substancial, quoting the help center:

Edits are expected to be substantial and to leave the post better than you found it. Common reasons for edits include:

  • To fix grammar and spelling mistakes
  • To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)
  • To include additional information only found in comments, so all of the information relevant to the post is contained in one place
  • To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages
  • To add related resources or hyperlinks

As for the edit being accepted it was apparently accepted by the the Community user which is basically an automated maintenance bot. It was previously rejected by a real user for not providing any improvement to the question, which is also what I would have voted for, as you can see from the review history.

enter image description here

That means it was apparently automatically accepted, and got (correctly in my opinion) rolled back by a real user who saw no benefit in the edit.

Don't see this a personal attack. Voting, accepting, editing, reputation and rules on the site are not about individual users and should never be personal. They are always about the posts themselves and the keeping this site as clean and accessible as possible. The main goal is global knowledge not the individual people.

For this reason we also like to keep the tone positive and constructive and avoid rants or emotional posts.

This may seem frustrating, but hope this shows how this site works, and improves your opinion of the network.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.