suggestion in question.

The edit, AFAIK, is very relevant to the question, is factually true, and stays well within the scope of what the answer is trying to provide.

The edit itself is not sufficient for a standalone answer, and so is confined to just that..

The reason given is: "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."

I assume that, by the bold headings, that they're trying to explain the info in bits. I drop the relevant info into the relevant bit, and call it a day.

Why is this not so?

  • \$\begingroup\$ I should add that the new contributor tag is quite false, I've been in EE.SE since 2015... \$\endgroup\$ – tuskiomi Jun 13 '19 at 22:45
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I think it means you are a new contributor to Meta, as this is your first meta post. It doesn't show as new user on the main EE.SE site \$\endgroup\$ – MCG Jun 14 '19 at 14:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ The other two reviewers aside, the owner of the post rejected your edit. The reason given is valid; the owner of the post has the best understanding of the original intent. I would've rejected the edit too - that section already addresses propagation delays and the entire answer does well to explain the constraints without requiring mathematics. \$\endgroup\$ – Kevin Kruse Jun 14 '19 at 14:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ Because who really cares about the article...? Not trying to be rude but realistic. It doesn't answer the OP. Also, you added something that could have been a completely separate answer. Why didn't you make a separate answer on your own? You literally wrote an entire paragraph that could have probably justified its own answer. \$\endgroup\$ – KingDuken Jun 21 '19 at 21:29

Likely because it makes a long answer even longer while also likely being wrong or at least irrelevant. Signals in an IC don't travel at the speed of light, but much slower (sorry, haven't been able to find an authoritative source here, finding figures ranging from 1/10 to 1/2 of light speed). This is true for signals in a cable and on the PCB too, btw.

Your point is still correct even though the exact numbers may not be, but the generic idea about propagation delay is already in the answer, so why make it longer?

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It's right in the How to Answer a Question page. Help us find a solution by researching the problem, then contribute the results of your research and anything additional you’ve tried as a partial answer. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. \$\endgroup\$ – tuskiomi Jun 17 '19 at 14:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ @tuskiomi You didn't write a partial answer, so that page does not apply. \$\endgroup\$ – pipe Jun 17 '19 at 16:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ What is a partial answer? the other definition I'd use for partial answer doesn't seem to fit; as it's often downvoted \$\endgroup\$ – tuskiomi Jun 17 '19 at 16:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ @tuskiomi why are you still arguing it? It has been answered as to why your edit was rejected. Not only that, the answerer rejected it too. Let it go and move on. \$\endgroup\$ – MCG Jun 18 '19 at 15:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MCG I'm not. I'm legitimately asking for the sake of clarity. EE.SE is one of the most strict sites on the network, and the rules should be clear and consistent. \$\endgroup\$ – tuskiomi Jun 18 '19 at 15:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @tuskiomi they are clear. It is irrelevant information that isn't needed. It doesn't improve the answer in any way. It is also out of context with the rest of the answer, by talking about light-speed, so its going off on a tangent. Hence the reason that it deviates from the original post. That, and the author decided to reject it. That seems pretty clear to me. Regardless of any rules and regardless of content, if an author doesn't want the edit applied, then they have every right to refuse it. Both of these things happened here. It should be very clear now with the responses you have got \$\endgroup\$ – MCG Jun 18 '19 at 15:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MCG The question I was referring to is: "What is a partial answer?" \$\endgroup\$ – tuskiomi Jun 18 '19 at 15:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ That is in the section of 'Have the same problem?'. That would be to write your own answer, showing the research you have done and the results you have found, but make sure to state it is ongoing. So a partial answer is an unfinished answer, but is able to be used as sort of a hint to help the OP on their way to solving. Please note too that the first sentence of that section states: "Still no answer to the question, and you have the same problem?". This had an answer already, so another reason this would not apply \$\endgroup\$ – MCG Jun 18 '19 at 15:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @tuskiomi For example, when answering homework questions, I never give a full answer. I would give them the tools needed to solve it themselves by showing the method, possibly with diagrams or examples. That is not a full answer, but it would be a partial one as it can be used to as a starting point to solve the question. A partial answer is not using someone else's answer to go on a tangent and add some random information \$\endgroup\$ – MCG Jun 18 '19 at 15:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MCG That's fair, and the help center says that's encouraged.? \$\endgroup\$ – tuskiomi Jun 18 '19 at 15:30

If you think there's something wrong with the post, the first step should be to use a comment to point it out. That gives the OP the opportunity to put it in his own words and blend it better with the rest of the text. It's just basic courtesy.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Why isn't this basic courtesy something that's posted anywhere on EE.SE as a rule? I can't find it anywhere in the help center... \$\endgroup\$ – tuskiomi Jun 14 '19 at 1:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @tuskiomi because courtesy isn't a requirement. It's just polite. Same as it is courtesy to say thank you to people that help you, but it isn't a rule. \$\endgroup\$ – MCG Jun 14 '19 at 12:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MCG Excuse my skepticism, but seeing as how Be Nice is listed, one would think that the help center would state what that entails. Perhaps not every example, but at least specific ones.. I'm also still clueless about why, in this case, courtesy trumps content. In nearly every case I've seen, the people of EE.SE will spare no courtesy to improve an answer, or remove low-grade content; It seems very peculiar that this religiously applied mantra seems to stop right here... Is there something special about this case? \$\endgroup\$ – tuskiomi Jun 14 '19 at 13:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also the new contributor is not based on reputation whatsoever, It's based solely on when the first post of a user is made. see: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/372894/… \$\endgroup\$ – tuskiomi Jun 14 '19 at 13:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @tuskiomi If you look at one of the people who rejected the edit, it was the same person who provided the answer. For the reason that it deviates from the intent of the post. Even if the edit is factually true information, the author clearly feels they do not want it or need it. I also feel it deviates from the intent of the answer too. It seems to be just extra irrelevant info that doesn't provide any additional useful content. \$\endgroup\$ – MCG Jun 14 '19 at 13:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MCG what's relevant in this case? You can literally say your last two sentences about all edits on EE.SE that add content to an answer, and be justifiable in some way, shape, or form \$\endgroup\$ – tuskiomi Jun 14 '19 at 13:49
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Which is exactly why such edits are extremely rare. \$\endgroup\$ – Dave Tweed Jun 14 '19 at 13:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ @tuskiomi As for the 'Be Nice' policy, you really shouldn't have to explain to people how to be nice. So no, you wouldn't put what 'Be Nice' entails in the help center. And what do you mean that in this case courtesy trumps content? The content wasn't too relevant to the answer, and clearly was something the author didn't want. That should be the end of it.You can't just add random facts on any answer and expect that to be ok. Most edits are tidying up spelling errors, or fixing minor errors in information, embedding links and pictures etc. \$\endgroup\$ – MCG Jun 14 '19 at 13:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ 9 times out of 10, edits that add content to an answer are a case of an original answer stating 'x is the answer' and someone editing it to add this is why. In an answer that covers a lot of information already, I would expect most people to reject adding a random fact for the sake of it. \$\endgroup\$ – MCG Jun 14 '19 at 13:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MCG That's just it; What is a random fact? I'm sure if I fleshed out my physics edit, it would be upvoted, so it's clearly not irrelevant. \$\endgroup\$ – tuskiomi Jun 14 '19 at 14:59
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Then flesh it out into your own answer. The author clearly did not want the edit. That should be the end of the issue. It was rejected fairly \$\endgroup\$ – MCG Jun 14 '19 at 21:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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