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.

There are many issues surrounding suggested edits and edit reviews.

I understand editing is addresses in the help section, however there is debate over what is considered minor or not.

Part of the motivation for people to suggest edits is for rep and badges. For reviews, is badges. For many others, we are pedantic and like seeing tidy posts.

I suggest the following:

  1. Editing tags is given a separate badge. That tag edits do not earn any rep, but still gives a badge, to motivate those who are goal completion driven (as that is what badges are about).

  2. The minimum edit length is removed for users with >eg 250 rep. So that if there is an obvious typo in the title or such, it can be edited, without the user having to find other parts of the post to edit to get it submitted. This will reduce the number of poor edits. These could also give no reward of rep, but contribute towards a badge.

  3. Minor edits, involving removal of salutation are also permissible, but do not give rep and can become a badge category of there own, of eg "automated maniac", "human detector and annihilator" or "post cleaner" ;-)

  4. The above "minor edits" could be given a separate review queue. The problem with this is the motivation for reviewers to review such post, so maybe not.

Also:

  1. I think there needs to be reviews of reviewers with eg <3000 rep. As I am noticing people can churn through reviews allow edits that shouldn't be approved. I do understand that this could become a set of reviews of reviews of reviews adfinitum. However, I think as users grow in rep, there motivation to gain more rep settles into a better frame of good quality programming posts, rather than trying to obtain user privileges and "power", etc.

Or:

  1. The rep required to earn privileges needs to be raised, this will sort out some of the issues. As, a general rule, increasing longevity of membership and rep, would be linked with usefulness and responsibility towards the site. This could have a twofold- putting more load on moderators and higher rep users. Take away much of the load, as there wouldn't be so many low quality edits to review.

I am happy for people to edit this post and add links of examples, etc. Please contribute constructively.

share|improve this question
    
please advise if this is correctly tagged as feature request –  user223277 Jul 15 '13 at 10:30
3  
I think you've combined a number of different feature requests into a single post, so it is tough to give a fair up/down vote the request. Some of the ideas are intriguing others are not, so I am going to abstain from voiting at this point. If I get a few minutes later, I am going to put my responses into a answer. –  psubsee2003 Jul 15 '13 at 12:06
    
@psubsee2003 sure, I can break it up into different posts, not sure, am new to this –  user223277 Jul 15 '13 at 12:08
1  
You should handling it like you want. If you think you can tie it together to fix 1 specific problem, then you can leave it together, but it looks like you are trying to solve multiple problems in 1 post (several of which have been suggested before). I am about to answer though to offer my feedback to everything. –  psubsee2003 Jul 15 '13 at 12:23
    
I don't understand what you mean by "I suggest privileges to of tag edits, suggested edits and low quality posts and reviews of such; are dealt with separately." –  JoshDM Jul 15 '13 at 15:45
    
@JoshDM will edit it to make it clear –  user223277 Jul 16 '13 at 1:53
    
I have rolled back my question, as I think my edits are making it increasingly confusing. The question is not perfect, but that's ok –  user223277 Jul 16 '13 at 3:00

2 Answers 2

Regarding the fourth suggestion of the first draft of the question, that proposed edit flags indicating that a post needs improvement:

Even though the original question has been edited since, you can still find the proposal in Revision 4 of the question. I will still leave the answer here, as the suggested edit flag had been proposed by the OP initially.)

One of the core features of StackExchange sites is that all posts can be edited by all users - even by those not logged in. There had been a feature request addressing that long time ago. That request was declined however.

In my opinion introducing a flag to indicate that improvement is needed is not useful. Both a suggested edit and a flag will need a review. If the suggested edit or flag is invalid there's no big difference: Either the reviewer rejects the suggestion or flag altogether or makes the necessary improvements anyway. But if the user did flag correctly the reviewer will still need to make the suggested changes, whereas in the current system the reviewer simply approves the changes already suggested.

Simply introducing a flag "Hey here is work that needs to be done!" without encouraging the user to actually help doing that work will increase the workload on the wrong persons.

share|improve this answer
    
You're right, I added that, I think I need to review my proposal in the morning, gave you an upvote –  user223277 Jul 15 '13 at 14:26
    
@Yve I have corrected the post - I didn't see it in the revision first hand, because I thought that proposal was part of the initial draft where I couldn't find it - sorry for that misunderstanding. I have no clue however how mentioning your name (as you were the OP, and not finding something in a revision history is not your fault in any way) could have a negative effect on anyones reputation? –  Spontifixus Jul 22 '13 at 7:51

The minimum edit length is removed for users with >eg 250 rep. So that if there is an obvious typo in the title or such, it can be edited, without the user having to find other parts of the post to edit to get it submitted. This will reduce the number of poor edits. These could also give no reward of rep, but contribute towards a badge.

I think you'll need to come up with good examples of poor quality edits caused by someone trying to edit more just to correct a minor typo. The purpose of the minimum edit length is to force the editor to suggest a good edit fixing all of the issues in the post, not just cherry pick specific edits. Reviewing minor edits causes the time for reviewers, either by having to now "Improve" more edits to fix everything or by having more edits in the queue and requiring more reviewers to approve.

Minor edits, involving removal of salutation are also permissible, but do not give rep and can become a badge category of there own, of eg "automated maniac", "human detector and annihilator" or "post cleaner" ;-)

This is similar to your above idea. Minor edits, whether a small typo or removing salutations have the same problems, so my response is the same. And this has also been suggested several times in the past. Here's one example that was closed as a dup of another suggestion: Allow marked minor edits with no rep gain

The above "minor edits" could be given a separate review queue. The problem with this is the motivation for reviewers to review such post, so maybe not.

What's the purpose of this 2nd edit review queue? How will this address the problems in the current system. Seems like you are proposing it for a dumping ground for the added volume that your other suggestions will cause, but what will it do to make reviewing better or faster or more productive?

The rep required to earn privileges needs to be raised, this will sort out some of the issues. As, a general rule, increasing longevity of membership and rep, would be linked with usefulness and responsibility towards the site. This could have a twofold- putting more load on moderators and higher rep users. Take away much of the load, as there wouldn't be so many low quality edits to review.

Not a bad idea and has been mentioned before, but I can't recall a specific feature request about it. However, I don't necessarily think it should be a reputation only barrier. There are plenty of 2K users who know how to edit and review, and plenty of 3K users who don't. If you want to try to improve editing and reviewers, maybe there could be other barriers to entry, such as specific badges or specific accepted/rejected edit

share|improve this answer
    
I like this, I will address the issues you've raised. Is this more the format you are suggesting? meta.stackexchange.com/questions/188839/… –  user223277 Jul 15 '13 at 12:29
    
@Yve It is tough to articulate, as it depends on the nature of the post and the reasons behind the feature request. This specific feature request seems to have multiple different ideas and the only common theme I can find it "improve editing". If you can find a way to tie this together to address a specific problem, then it is good with multiple ideas. But if you can't tie together, then in my opinion, they need to be separate feature requests. –  psubsee2003 Jul 15 '13 at 12:38
    
@Yve Your first 4 bullet ideas seems to be more closely related as they are trying to address your concerns with editing by offering new and different incentives, and your last 2 ideas are related as they are about reviewers, so you might be able to break this up into 2 requests, but you need to be prepared to discuss not only what you are trying to fix, but why and how it will help. –  psubsee2003 Jul 15 '13 at 12:41
    
Ok, that is also why I am throwing up some argument for and against. Will revise questions and post separate one about reviews.. thnx for your time –  user223277 Jul 15 '13 at 12:44
    
I have edited the question, I tried to post it separately, but that didn't work.. please tell me what you think.. I might have to come back to this in the morning, I'm starting to over think it and it's becoming non-productive –  user223277 Jul 15 '13 at 13:50

You must log in to answer this question.