I would like to see a badge that rewards more careful reviewing of suggested edits. I think it could be based on the number of suggested edits that are rejected and the user voted to reject.
Wording and names open to suggestions.
- Bronze, "Precise" - 50 votes to reject suggested edits that were rejected
- Silver, "Meticulous" - 150 votes to reject suggested edits that were rejected
- Gold, "Thorough" - 500 votes to reject suggested edits that were rejected
Partially inspired by Do suggested edit reviewers make judgments too hastily?. Seriously, this kind of edit needs to be discouraged...
Edit: A response to the claim that it's gameable -
- On SO, multiple votes are needed for an edit to be approved or rejected, so by restricting to suggested edits that a ultimately rejected, this should eliminate most gaming there.
- On sites where only one vote is needed to approve or reject a suggested edit, maybe the thresholds could be adjusted, but consider that the Proofreader badge already encourages reviewing rampantly, so at the very least this encourages diversity of voting while gaming the system, but hopefully, while being as gameable as the Proofreader badge it would also encourage better behavior in honest particapants.
Edit 2: Since so much of the discussion seems to be focused on saying this is a useless badge based on how gameable it could be, I am including a list of badges that a user can earn through careless hasty action, but which are intended to promote thoughtful citizenship. Feel free to chime in if you believe all the below badges are bad as well or if I've miscategorized one.
- Benefactor (iffy, because you have to create a question that garners an answer)
- Citizen Patrol
- Civic Duty
- Copy Editor
- Scholar (same caveat as Benefactor)
- Strunk & White
- Vox Populi
If I'm to believe that the reasons given below in the comments and answers establish my badge suggestion as a bad idea, can I assume that 26 out of 69 total current badges are also bad? Or is the fact that 37% of badges are built out this way enough to call the substance of those reasons into question?