Fix a missed increase or decrease, rows later?

[amy]

I know it's possible, but is a good idea? ....To run down the necessary stitches, work that missed increase or decrease, and then accomodate for the loose or tight stitches by re-distributing the yarn from adjacent stitches? (On every subsequent row.)

Has anyone done this successfully?
And is it worth the trouble?

I'll be covering the topic of fixing mistake stitches, and I want to know what to say about increases and decreases...

Thanks!
Amy

[Nancy]

Well, a friend of mine is making a baby blanket. 150+ stitches. Design is hearts done with yarn overs.

Somehow (pattern problems, user error, whatever) she has lost 8 stitches. She thinks she needs to rip out 25 rows and reknit.

I think she should just systematically do increases across the width and forget about it.

So, I guess my opinion is if the lost stitches constitute less than 10% of the stitches and the object is large enough the problem is not visible to all but the most fastidious of observers (I certainly dont see any decrease in width or irregularity in the pattern in the blanket) then do what you can toget the stitch count back and go foreward.

If you want a machine knit item, go buy it.

Knitting for most of us is for pleasure and the warm glow that comes with knowing we did it ourselves. If we're stressing over something small, its not worth it.

Call it a "design element" if you need to.

[amy]

You see, that's an example where I would personally prefer to re-knit it! I can't imagine handling more than one increase--I think the headache would just be too much for me! Plus, you have to wonder about the resulting garment. It might have the right number of stitches, but it would still be the same width as before. When you knit the next row, it might ruffle a bit, like you just added 8 stitches on that row. Right? I would think.... ???

But it's interesting to hear you say you'd be up to the task! Perhaps this is one of those personal questions, where each knitter has their own preference... not surprising I suppose!

Thanks, Nancy!