This happens once or twice every week with little variation:
Let's go through the situation quickly:
- A new user has his first attempt at improving the content of an SE post. He puts up a decent attempt, and adds an edit summary highlighting what he did. So far, so good.
- But, they add mathjax to the title, which is bad for us for several reasons discussed in the past. Since this is the only thing they did, we have to reject this suggested edit, which was rightfully the case here.
- However, the problem here are the "Reasons" that have been given for rejection:
- one is a canned response that correctly describes the problem ("actively harm readability"). But, how do we expect the new user to know if their suggested edit to the title was harming readability?
- the second is a response that more specifically addresses the problem, but still doesn't give the user a reason as to why MathJax is not allowed in the title.
Both of the reasons are likely to not help the user completely understand what's the matter here, and they are likely to repeat the error again, or give up suggesting edits entirely facing dejection on their first attempt. Not everyone knows about Meta, and where to find the information about "mathjax in titles".
Of course, I am not suggesting that suggested edit reviewers should comment about "No MathJax in titles" and link to a meta post. That would take much more time and is too difficult to put in practice. The return would be not worth the time.
However, I wonder if there could be a better way to reject such edits. Since this requirement (No MathJax in titles) is unique to our community, I wonder if a custom reject reason could be implemented - that would say something along the lines of:
The edit is an attempt at improvement, but we avoid MathJax in the title. Please see - chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/q/261 - for details.
(sitting at 140 chars, maximum in the custom close reason is 150)
I think this would easily allows reviewers to reject the edit while also giving the user a complete understanding of where they went wrong.
Is this doable? Or is there another way that achieves the same motive? Thoughts?
PS: Within an hour of my submitting this meta post, the same user did the same thing to the title again. Here you can you see that the custom close reason looks much neater:
Of course, the problem at hand is how to execute this custom close reason efficiently.