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

To avoid reviewers just following what's previously been decided, the review UI shouldn't display the pro-forma comments that don't have further input added by previous reviewers suggesting deletion.

share|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

It's valuable for a reviewer to see any previous reviews of an edit, especially rejection messages. A previous reviewer might notice something that I didn't notice. For example, when I reject a tag-wiki edit that is seemingly OK until I realize that it's a massive copy-and-paste of another article, I include this info with a link to the article. The next person to review the edit doesn't have to go through the trouble of checking for plagiarism.

Seeing the reason somebody else rejected an edit, especially if they supplied a custom reason, is a huge time-saver. Really, we want to encourage exactly the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. A truly bad edit only needs one set of eyes. The second reject is really just a sanity check for the first, and if the first rejection message can make that easier, that's a good thing.

Your edit makes this even simpler: Seeing one of the pre-formatted rejection reasons is still a good thing. People are far too eager to click the approve button, and seeing that somebody else thinks an edit is bad is still beneficial to reviewers. It should prompt you to stop and scrutinize an edit more thoroughly than you might have otherwise.

share|improve this answer
OK. I was only referring to the simple (non-custom) comments with no further input. And my example is where a "link-only" answer is in fact perfectly valid because the question asked for links. – Mark Hurd Aug 12 '12 at 19:04
Your example is doesn't make sense. Are you talking about when somebody edits a link-only answer, and somebody rejects that edit for some reason? Regardless, questions which solicit a list of links should be deleted anyways. They're not useful. – meagar Aug 12 '12 at 19:06
I looked through my review history but could not find the answer I was referring to :-( – Mark Hurd Aug 12 '12 at 19:21
Possibly it was deleted, but I still can't picture what you're talking about. Did somebody reject one of your edits to a link-only answer? – meagar Aug 12 '12 at 19:22
No, I didn't edit it. A previous reviewer added the "this is a link-only answer" comment, and IMHO the question asked for links. As has been suggested I think the question may have had a problem, but given that, I don't think the answer was in the wrong. – Mark Hurd Aug 13 '12 at 3:12

You must log in to answer this question.

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