I just had my first edit here rejected and am a bit confused.

Rejection comment 1:

  • Xander 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.

Explanation: I was fixing an insecure link which was suggested twice in the comments. People are upvoting those comments because it matters. Using an insecure http link to distribute a PGP key is a bad idea and an important part of answering this question thoroughly.

Rejection comment 2:

Explanation: The new https link works perfectly from Switzerland and the Netherlands: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xE493B06DD070AFC8 - I don't understand what Begueradj meant.

What am I missing here?

  • 2
    Both links work. I'm not sure you can speak for the poster, though. – schroeder Oct 19 '15 at 22:44
  • Thanks @schroeder, I was not intending to "speak for the poster". Please explain. Are you referring to user roger-c-s-wernersson who asked the question? – Jonathan Cross Oct 19 '15 at 23:13
  • It could be that Roger intended for the link to be not encrypted to highlight the fact that public was alright. Although the commenters suggest that it is safer, I'm not sure that is what Roger intended. Because of this ambiguity, comments should be made to clarify but not edits without his input. – schroeder Oct 19 '15 at 23:38
  • 1
    The link in question was posted by @Mark Davidson in his answer (not by Roger). Mark might have been unaware of the https option (my assumption), but there is no way to know for sure. – Jonathan Cross Oct 20 '15 at 12:53
  • 9
    I apologize for rejecting your edit: by error I tested the link of the answerer instead of yours. – user45139 Oct 22 '15 at 4:23
  • Thanks @Begueradj, at least that part of the rejection is cleared up ;-) – Jonathan Cross Oct 23 '15 at 21:14

The edit failed to improve the post in any way. The link was for illustration purposes, and whether it was HTTPS or HTTP was immaterial, and the comments suggesting it be changes were irrelevant. Discussion of protecting the key with HTTPS might have been relevant, but should have been addressed either by the original answerer, or as a new answer. Changing the protocol of the example link in isolation is not.

So, in my view, changing the link had no bearing at all on the quality of the answer, and was not helpful, that's why I felt rejection was appropriate.

You must log in to answer this question.

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