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 know proposals to drop the review vote limit have been denied, so I'll propose a compromise.

Today's the biggest edit queue I've seen yet, but I have thought this before. I went to the edit queue, it was at 131. I ran out of votes, reloaded the page, and it was down to a measly 115. I think when the queue is so big, we should have extra votes so we can work through the backlog. Now, how this could be implemented is tricky, largely because on SO it takes two votes to accept/reject. What I am thinking is that after we run out (perhaps when the queue is over a certain threshold) we can have pending votes on half(?) the queue. For instance, let's say you run out of edit votes and there are 100 votes in the queue. We could then have pending votes on up to 50 of those suggested edits. You come back later, the queue is 80, you can vote another 40 times. You come back, it's down to 25 edits, you don't get any more.

To avoid a discontinuity at 49/50 votes (or wherever the threshold is set), we could also get N - 50 more votes: queue of 55 -> 5 extra; 75 -> 25 extra.

I think this is a reasonable compromise between a few people controlling all the edits and getting through the queue.

share|improve this question
With the community as large as it is, I think the problem is supposed to solve itself. If you wait 15 or 20 minutes, does the number of posts in the queue drop significantly? If so, I don't see why we need to increase the number of votes per-user. (I also run out a lot, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that one person shouldn't control all the edits.) – Cody Gray Mar 13 '12 at 23:41
As of now, it's been over 100 for at least an hour. How long should we let the approve/reject time get? – Kevin Mar 13 '12 at 23:49
I would be more in favor of something like not making a suggested edit count towards your daily limit if it's over 1 hour old. I agree edits are vital, and in some instances approving them in a timely manner is even more vital. If other community members are unable to respond to a suggested edit within the allotted time, those who have already exceeded their vote limit should be able to step in and take care of it. However, a large queue doesn't necessarily mean that they're not being approved in a timely fashion. – animuson Mar 14 '12 at 1:16
I just now went through my 40 votes; the queue still has 67 suggested edits, and many of the edits I approved and rejected were hours old. Eight hours is fine when the topic is obscure, but most were simple grammar / spelling / formatting fixes. Two or three days ago I saw a lot of suggested edits in the queue for over eight hours. We either need to encourage more people to manage the queue or let those of us who already manage the queue manage more. – sarnold Mar 18 '12 at 2:57
Another day, another 40 votes, and there are 17 suggested edits that are two or more hours in the queue that I cannot vote on. – sarnold Mar 20 '12 at 3:33
.. And now, 19 hours later, there are 14 edit suggestions two or three hours old. Maybe we can get 50 or 60 votes per day? – sarnold Mar 20 '12 at 22:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .