I have been doing a fair bit of reviewing, particularly of suggested edits in the last week, since the Review Tasks (beta) went live. Partly to get a better feel for the rejection reasons and partly because I like to know the outcome, I’ll often review the suggestions to see which way people voted and what the final decision was. Whilst doing this, I’ve noticed a pretty large variation in the approve/reject rates for users. Taking the top 5 from the suggested edits stats for example you have:
User (Rep) Approved (%) Rejected Jason Sturges (5,115) 492 (71%) 203 Pshemo (3,670) 472 (97%) 16 Gamecat (30,047) 1437 (87%) 224 John Conde (26,681) 710 (97%) 24 PraVn (3,126) 311 (99%) 4
Maybe some users have been really lucky and only seen good suggestions but the variation is significant enough that it feels like there is a bigger issue. Is this really an issue and if so, is there a way to address it? One way might be to raise the profile a bit by putting something like (% suggested edits approved / % suggested edits where approval was contested) on the users main summary page. My current approval rate is 52%, which is low, particularly based on the accepted answer to this question.
The other thing I’ve noticed is that if I take the time to validate an edit (by going to the relevant question to confirm that information has been moved up from comments for example) then the time taken to do this can result in a decision being made one way or the other while I’m doing that. Is there some kind of lock placed on edits that are being reviewed to reduce the likelihood of this happening and if not, would it be beneficial? I think a lock for even just 1-2 minutes would be sufficient to allow time and encourage the edit to be properly checked without really impacting the length of the suggested edit queue. Now that more people have access to it, I’ve rarely seen it go much into double figures.