MathJax and Pending Edits

Question

I've had a couple rejected edits dealing with converting math->MathJax. I think I'm starting to see why. On the suggested edit form that reviewers see, the MathJax doesn't convert to the final form.

I borrowed this following equation from this question.

So what we should see as$$\mathbf{F}=-k\frac{\sqrt{|e_1e_2|}\text{sgn}(e_1)\text{sgn}(e_2)}{r^2}\mathbf{u}_r$$

The reviewers see as:

 $$\mathbf{F}=-k\frac{\sqrt{|e_1e_2|}\text{sgn}(e_1)\text{sgn}(e_2)}{r^2}\mathbf{u}_r$$

Which is the exact same thing: only not converted into the nice symbols but in the raw, ugly code text.

I think this needs to be fixed. I'm not a reviewer myself, but I can sympathize with them: I wouldn't approve this edit if it looked like that (doesn't improve readability.)It takes time to read through MathJax/LaTeX code to ensure that it's okay. It's gotten to the point where whenever I put math into MathJax as a suggested edit, I include this line for my edit summary:

"Changed the math to MathJax. Please only reroll this edit if you look at what the MathJax looks like in proper format. On the base format, it looks like a lot of messing with $'s and \'s."

So this needs to be fixed. I'm hoping there's some way to implement the finished code into the writing for the review ques for suggested edits: that's why I'm tagging this feature-request. Are there any ways to spread awareness/fix this issue? I've also seen this post dealing with this issue that I think is relevant.

Also: Should there be another post (more generalized about rendering MathJax in pending edits) on the main Meta Stack Exchange?

Answer 1

I don't have any such edit to look at immediately, so I'm going from memory here. Please excuse any inaccuracies.

There are different "views" of posts in the review queues. Particularly, there is a source view and a "rendered" view. These are good at different things, but one thing the "rendered" view is decidedly better at is showing Mathjax.

Whenever reviewing anything involving Mathjax, unless the change is trivial, it's often better to look at the rendered view.

That said, I'd like to say two things.

First, I personally find that edit summary somewhat condescending. I see what you're trying to say, but it's not really necessary to say it the way you're doing. May I suggest simply sticking to the facts of what the edit is about and why? You might try something like

format formulas using MathJax

to highlight the purpose of the edit without it coming across as telling reviewers "you better have a xxx good reason if you're going to reject this or change it later".

Second, as already raised in part by Bellerophon in a comment as I was starting to write this; while MathJax is a great addition to the site (and we lobbied early on to have it enabled), it comes at a cost. If simpler alternatives can be used to achieve the same result, then consider using those instead. While it can be legitimate to change 50 m^2 into 50 m<sup>2</sup> (which renders as approximately 50 m²), it might not be warranted to invoke MathJax there; $50 m^2$ or even $50 ~\text{m}^2$ doesn't add anything over the HTML variant, and can detract from the readability of the post if nothing else then by the resultant highlighting of the number. Especially if the post does not otherwise use or benefit from MathJax, at best such an edit introducing MathJax provides no improvement, and might be considered detrimental. Even "no improvement whatsoever" is a perfectly valid, system-provided reason to reject a proposed edit.

So on the whole, by all means go ahead and propose edits to introduce MathJax where appropriate, but keep in mind that MathJax isn't always appropriate, and maybe tone down the edit summary a little. And of course, don't spam the front page with edits. It's likely plenty to propose edits to a few questions, and any answers to those questions at the same time (since answers piggyback on the question's front page entry), per hour.