What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

It's always (well, for a long time) annoyed me that, as a 10K user, I can very easily edit a post and have it apply immediately. Whereas if a lower-rep user has already suggested an edit, whether I agree or disagree with their edit, I can't approve or reject it without at least one other person approving. Which seems relatively silly when you think about it, and can significantly slow down the process of improving a post.

I understand the reason for this behavior: people plow through the edit queue and maybe have less investment in truthfully reviewing the edit and ensuring that it makes sense, especially without having any direct experience with the question in context (and perhaps rushing to get some badge makes this process even more careless). But I think this type of mindless edit is far less likely to happen if I am reviewing the edit because I was actually on the question and clicked the edit (0) link, rather than because I was simply plowing through the queue.

I am not sure of the technical difficulty to implement what I'm asking for, and I suspect you'll down-vote me into oblivion and/or close this as a duplicate of Why multiple approvers for proposed edits. But since this triple-stamp process can occasionally really slow down clarifying or improving a post, I still feel justified in asking:

Can we waive the requirement to have another set of eyes approve an approval (or approve a rejection) when and only when (a) the approver is a 10K user and (b) the approver files his/her vote to approve or reject the edit from within the question vs. from within the edit queue?

share|improve this question
7  
I support this, it annoys me as well. –  Matt Jul 5 '12 at 15:03
    
Can you click "improve" (without really changing anything) and submit the edit that way in order to bypass this? Obviously, leaving the "This edit was helpful" checkbox checked so the original suggester gets credit. –  jadarnel27 Jul 5 '12 at 15:11
1  
@jadarnel27 seems like extra steps that shouldn't be necessary for 10K users. Usually my goal is to make further edits after the original editor and I'd generally prefer to keep those separate. –  Aaron Bertrand Jul 5 '12 at 15:12
    
+1. I can see the need for multiple eyes in the queue, but approving an edit on the question does seem like it should make it take effect. –  Adam Robinson Jul 5 '12 at 15:16
    
If you're going to perform further edits, using the "improve" button actually does approve the suggested edit immediately (and creates two separate revisions). But I do agree with your proposal in general, +1 from me as well. –  jadarnel27 Jul 5 '12 at 15:25
    
@jadarnel27 well, I might not always be ready to perform further edits right then and there. And I'm not always doing so anyway - often the suggested edit is handling the same issue I was going to fix. –  Aaron Bertrand Jul 5 '12 at 15:26
    
You might be able to improve it - but you have to work off the changed data not the original –  Mark Jul 5 '12 at 15:34
    
@Mark that's a good point. Also, sometimes the suggested edit is not helpful and I want to reject it and improve the post in my own way. If I can only vote to reject it and have to wait for someone else to agree with me, the chances I'm going to come back and revisit hours later after having my edit stifled when I was ready to implement it... –  Aaron Bertrand Jul 5 '12 at 15:38
    
@AaronBertrand Take a look at Waffles' answer to Do we need a 'reject and improve' button? –  Some Helpful Commenter Jul 5 '12 at 15:46
    
@SomeHelpfulCommenter I get it now, thanks. Still that's not the only scenario where my suggestion would apply. –  Aaron Bertrand Jul 5 '12 at 15:48
    
Keep in mind that if this was implemented you will have people, in the edit queue, clicking the link to the question and going there to approve/reject it so that they don't need a second vote. Because of that this suggestion really is very little more than removing the two vote requirement entirely. –  Servy Jul 5 '12 at 17:47
    
@Servy note that my requirement also dictates that only 10K users can bypass the multi-stamp check. Could some 10K users abuse this? Possibly. But nobody else could. –  Aaron Bertrand Jul 5 '12 at 17:48
    
@AaronBertrand So then your suggestion is effectively equivalent to saying that 10k users should get 2 votes when reviewing edits. If you're going to change it in on place just do it in both; it won't stop anyone anyway. –  Servy Jul 5 '12 at 17:51
    
@Servy I'm saying that a 10K user should be able to approve an edit with the same minimal roadblocks that exist for them to edit it themselves. The extra steps of having to leave the edit queue and go to the question should mitigate any potential abuse and should in fact make it more likely that they'll pay attention to the entire question in full context instead of just in the context of the edit. I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. What I'm trying to do is to make it easier for us to approve edits in the process of viewing, reviewing and dealing with questions, not open doors for abuse. –  Aaron Bertrand Jul 5 '12 at 17:54
    
@Servy why do you seem to think 10K users would use this to sneak edits in that otherwise might get rejected? What would a 10K user gain from that? After all if they really want to make a change to the question they can do so after the approval anyway, or they could "improve" the question as otherwise suggested here. So I'm not sure where this abuse would come from. –  Aaron Bertrand Jul 5 '12 at 17:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .