Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I don't like the decision for basing the ability to have more 'power' in editing with higher rep users -- just 'cause you have 10k rep doesn't mean you can pwn me (~2.5k rep) at editing. But that's another story.

Technically, someone could make something that would go through all the recent suggested edits. All they need to do is search the most recent suggested edits, and filter out the ones rejected or approved. INSERT HIGH NUMBER.

So what's the point of having the editing queue available to only 10k users? I have made over a thousand edits on SE, and I think I can tell the difference between an edit to approve and an edit to reject. (Notice I didn't say "good/bad edit".)

StackExchange is suppposed to be like Wikipedia, right? So give the good editors more privileges across sites, regardless of whether they have enough rep or not!

In fact: I propose an integrated edit queue on StackExchange. You can look at the edit queue for sites/tags you indicate.


  • Editing privileges based on number of quality edits (Wikipedia style).
  • Editing privileges are sustained across different SE sites.
  • An edit queue on
share|improve this question
Just patience, muntoo. We will all be there soon. – Kris Nov 23 '11 at 9:10
But many thanks for your hundreds (thousands?) of edits on SO. :) – sarnold Nov 23 '11 at 11:46
@sarnold I don't think it's in the thousand_s_ yet. :) – Mateen Ulhaq Nov 25 '11 at 9:41
up vote 13 down vote accepted

Firstly, it's not 10k anymore. The edit queue is now shown to 5k users as a partial fulfillment of this feature request. However, I do not support your idea of a network wide edit queue.

I moderate two sites on the network: Gardening & Signal processing and I can tell you from first hand experience that the edit queues in both the site are very different. On gardening, the edits are mostly minor and involve link fixes/grammar corrections/image fixes/overall improvements to the post. These are pretty easy to approve/reject and doesn't require much thinking.

However, on a highly specialized site like signal processing, there were some suggested edits that have stayed in the queue for 5-6 days (days!), because none of the mods (and one user who could see the queue) knew much about the subtopic related to the question. We eventually ended up reading a bit about the subject, discussing the edit made and decided to approve it.

Now I certainly cannot expect a random person who just happens to be an awesome editor on cooking.SE or christianity.SE to approve those edits, nor do I want them to! We don't want madmen correcting /etc/passwd on unix.SE to /etc/password and someone on english.SE approving it!

Now you might say that oh well, a good editor would not approve partial/poor edits. Wrong! Here's a recently approved edit on Stack Overflow. The person who suggested the change missed lt;br&gt several times (one even right before his edit), a few lower case i's and bungled up the spelling of grammar in his edit reason. This was even approved by 2 users! Can you imagine what would happen if we implemented an SE wide queue, and only 1 user is required to approve?

For these reasons, I strongly oppose any additional edit privileges on one site based on privileges earned on another. If you want to earn the privilege to edit, do it the hard way! Earn 2k rep. (or 1k on betas).

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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