Suggested edit: https://law.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/37015 Rejection reasons:

  • 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.
  • This edit did not correct critical issues with the post - view the revision history to see what should have been changed.

I do not see anything in this edit that deviates from the original intent. Nor do I see any “critical issues” corrected in the revision history, aside from what was also included in my edit.


2 Answers 2


I agree with your remarks about the "reasons" for rejection. Neither the initial post nor your suggested edit entails "critical issues" that would warrant correction, although I am unaware of what other options SE provides as "reasons" for rejection. That being said, all changes (including the ones you suggested) seem pointless or too marginal. For instance, changing the last line from italics to bold is purely a matter of personal taste and does not modify or improve readability at all.

The term "recordings" typically refers to a sequence of images and/or sounds, whereas a photo consists of only one, static image. Thus, editing to "recordings" does not seem to be a good choice. With or without the edit, the post is intelligible.

Also the change from "pedophiles" to "people" is largely inconsequential. Both terms are acceptable, but delving on why "people" would be more appropriate is likely to divert the focus of the post. Given the subject-matter of the post, using the term "pedophiles" seems more natural and did not warrant an edit.

  • Your answer does address my question, so even though I don't agree with it, I can accept it. There's just one more issue: the jurisdiction tag. Surely this is a non-controversial change that does improve the post? Dec 6, 2020 at 9:06
  • @BrianDrake Yes, jurisdiction is definitely important. I must have overlooked when the tag was added or by whom. Dec 6, 2020 at 11:38
  • Glad you agree that jurisdiction is definitely important. I don't know what your second sentence means. My suggested edit would have added a jurisdiction tag, but the reviewer who rejected and edited my suggestion did not include the tag. Dec 6, 2020 at 11:40
  • @BrianDrake I mean that I had not paid attention to the tag(s). I only focused on the body of the post and of the edits. Dec 6, 2020 at 11:43
  • Given that only around 50% of sex offenses against children are committed by pedophiles, it does make sense to me to change the word to "people", although it is a little pedantic.
    – forest
    Jan 24, 2021 at 22:44

I made the edit in question. No one alerted me that it had been questioend, I just happened to see it now. I will respond in detail.

  • "below the age of consent" is a specific legal concept. "underage" is vague and less helpful. The change from one to the other is in my view actively harmful. This change was probably the main reason I rejected the overall edit.
  • Writing "took photos" is the most general and natural way of describing this action. "recorded photos" is longer with no improvement.
  • "Situation A: She was charged" changing past tense to present may change the meaning slightly, and in no way improved it.
  • Changing "files" to "recordings" increases length to no significant benefit, and arguably a loss of technical clarity Changing "pictures" to "recordings" reduces the impact of the word, and provides no benefit. It also confuses still images with videos.
  • The change from "pedophiles" to "people" reduces the rhetorical force of the original post, and the situation the post writer is describing. Granted there is no way to know with assurance if the hypothetical viewers are in fact pedophiles or not, but the use ofm the term suggest that it was target at pedophiles, which is possibly significant. The change has no benefit, and arguably did some harm.

I don't recall my reasons for selecting the "critical issues" reason, but rejection reasons are selected from a limited menu, not hand written. The full revision history seems no longer available.

  • 3
    The "critical issues" message is used automatically when using "Reject and Edit." You would not have had any option to pick the rejection reason.
    – Ryan M
    Jan 7, 2021 at 5:40
  • 1
    yep, I completely agree agree that changing from "below the age of consent" to "underage" actually reduced readability. The same is true for the "files" to "recordings" change. The change from "pedophiles" to "people" did reduce the rhetorical force of the original post and, by doing so, it deviated from the original author's intent.
    – grovkin
    Jan 17, 2021 at 18:11
  • @grovkin An individual can be old enough to legally consent but cannot have sexual photographs taken of themselves. In a US state with an age of consent of 16, an individual can have sex with another of that age, but producing any sexual photographs would legally count as production of child pornography.
    – forest
    Jan 24, 2021 at 22:46

You must log in to answer this question.

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