What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 127 Stack Exchange communities.

I am reviewing often in the "Suggested Edit" queue and I recently noticed a bunch of downvotes (on two questions, on 16th of December) straight after rejecting a few reviews.

After I was able to see that all my reviews are public, I thought some people did not like to be rejected and gave me some points down to random questions (honestly I was not able to guess why these questions can get a downvote, I even asked for some explanation).

I know there is a mechanism that can try to prevent this mass downvoting of users but it seems it is not working all the time. Perhaps I am wrong on these voting patterns, but just the coincidence makes me think not.

My feature suggestion is that the people who reject a review stays anonymous for people with less than the rep limit for the review queue: e.g., 2k for Suggested Edit.

I ask this feature request mainly to the "Suggested Edit" queue because perhaps it does not make sense for other queues.

(Sorry if this kind of feature request has already been asked but I did not find a similar question.)

share|improve this question
I don't think it's a horrible suggestion, but I'm not sure that retrofitting the review queue like this would make it to the top of the priority list anytime soon. That being said, don't let revenge downvotes prevent you from rejecting bad edits in future. –  Jonathan Garber Dec 26 '13 at 15:05
You have had many suggested edits that day that shouldn't have gone trough at all. At least 80% is just rephrasing: that's becomes that is, 1st becomes first, etc. I suggest you start by making substantial changes. People shouldn't downvote you for that though, just pointing it out. –  Jeroen Vannevel Dec 26 '13 at 15:14
Thanks for your feedback, I just wanted to ask this feature but this behaviour from lower rep people does not make me to be more gentle or stopping to review. Even I pass under 2k, my rep will probably increase after few edits and some more questions/answer. –  ruffp Dec 26 '13 at 15:15
@Jeroen Vannevel in general I tend to correct post to be more readable, then for me it is totally acceptable to make only rephrasing in that case. But making these correction without addind some spaces (to make paragraphs) tend me to reject it as too minor. –  ruffp Dec 26 '13 at 15:22
@Jeroen Vannevel and to be more detailed, I am not a native English speaker, then I tend to be more focused on little details that make me not understanding the question or to be too phonetic (written like speaking not literal) –  ruffp Dec 26 '13 at 19:30
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Suggested edit reviews have always been public just as the edits themselves are public: it's important for folks to know what's going on and who is behind it. Limiting the visibility of this information out of concern that folks will retaliate in some fashion is appealing, but I don't think it is worth the loss of transparency.

That said, if you suspect someone is voting maliciously (for any reason), please follow the instructions here: What is serial voting and how does it affect me?

share|improve this answer
Ok thanks for the answer, I noticed a +4 on my rep with mention undownvoting, then probably a suspected behaviour was detected by some moderator (I did not have time to flag my questions) –  ruffp Dec 27 '13 at 16:17
add comment

Sorry about your losses, but It comes with the job. You did the right thing reporting it here, hopefully the people in charge can investigate this further.

However, I don't think it should be an anonymous procedure.

share|improve this answer
Moderators can't see votes (specifically who voted for who and when), so there is nothing to report. Mods can only see patterns in voting that are potentially fraudulent (potentially serial and sockpuppet voting). So your first paragraph is incorrect. And your second paragraph really is just a comment. –  psubsee2003 Dec 26 '13 at 15:11
My request is not to be "totally" anonymous but only anonym to the reviewed people. –  ruffp Dec 26 '13 at 15:12
@psubsee2003: yes, they do. I was confirmed by a moderator via the chat that my vote was placed 7ms after a question was accepted so they do have detailed information about voting available. –  Jeroen Vannevel Dec 26 '13 at 15:18
@JeroenVannevel unless something has changed in the last couple of weeks, moderators do not (and I don't think they should). But the developers do. –  psubsee2003 Dec 26 '13 at 15:19
@JeroenVannevel No, we don't. Source: I moderate a couple of sites. Are you sure you chatted with a moderator, and not with a SE employee (some of them carry diamonds as well)? –  Yannis Dec 26 '13 at 15:21
I'm glad that someone has the ability to do so, even if they are just the programmers. –  karlphillip Dec 26 '13 at 15:22
Oh sorry. Yes, it was a SE employee. Disregard what I said. It's confusing since they also have Moderator <> in their profile. –  Jeroen Vannevel Dec 26 '13 at 15:23
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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