What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 130 Stack Exchange communities.

I already have the "Edit Questions And Answers" privilege. Yet, if I approve someone else's edit, I'm told that more votes will be required before the edit is accepted.

This seems a bit peculiar to me, since I could just copy the edited version and paste it myself.

share|improve this question
17  
I agree with the sentiment of this question. Requiring multiple approvers makes people with 2K+ rep have significantly less power than before. Sometimes I want to approve a person's edit and further fix the post with new edits. As it stands now I'm forced to approve the existing edit, and the sit around on my hands until someone else approves it before I can finally fix the damn post like I used to be able to do without waiting. –  Kirk Woll Feb 15 '11 at 21:09
    
I filed a related request. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/138774/… –  Aaron Bertrand Jul 5 '12 at 14:57
    
I'd say that with the number of requests for improvements to the audit system, it's good that it does take more than just 1 person. –  jprofitt Dec 15 '13 at 21:28

5 Answers 5

It was (re-)introduced to ensure quality edits, for which Jeff says:

Beyond that, we may have to move back to my original plan cough of multiple reviewers which everyone hated and nobody understood.

Do you understand it now? :)

And:

2. we have multiple votes on suggested edits exclusively for Stack Overflow due to volume. We were seeing a lot of very bad edits get approved by single users.

With the multiple reviewers: if two reviewers disagree, then a third reviewer is needed. According to a comment from waffles, this goes both ways:

I am seeing a fair bit of edits that have 1 approve vote and 2 reject votes - and the opposite. It is totally clear that if we leave this up to one person the wrong kind of stuff can get approved and the right stuff rejected.

share|improve this answer
    
So the effect is that everyone who can will eventaully know to ignore the voting system, reject edits and do the edits themselves. –  Guffa Jun 29 '12 at 14:30
    
Why would reviewers edit themselves when all they need to do is click "Accept" otherwise? (For one, they're not getting any reputation from such edits.) And rejections need two votes on SO too? –  Arjan Jun 29 '12 at 14:59
    
Because otherwise some other will come and edit it themselves instead of accepting the edit, and take all the credit. –  Guffa Jun 29 '12 at 15:33
    
I've got the feeling you have a real life example of that? Without that, I cannot imagine why people would go through that trouble just for an edit. –  Arjan Jun 29 '12 at 15:41
    
Yes, I just experienced it, and I can't believe that I am the only one. The system practically encourages this behaviour, which is the opposite of what it was intended for. –  Guffa Jun 29 '12 at 15:51

I can understand the need for it, even if it does appear a little odd on the surface.

If you go and edit a post, the action is deliberate and requires some amount of effort on your part; you must actually look at the content of the post and (hopefully) determine that your edit is both sensible and relevant.

While the same thing should take place when approving an edit, it's much easier to miss something that's amiss with the edit. In this case, multiple eyes is probably a good idea.

Secondarily, if you edit a post yourself, your name is displayed prominently on the question or answer.

share|improve this answer
    
Perhaps there should be a different requirement if I'm reviewing the edit because I was on the question vs. plowing through the edit queue. It seems silly that I can edit a question unchecked, but I can't approve someone else's edit. –  Aaron Bertrand Jul 5 '12 at 14:39
    
I filed a related request. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/138774/… –  Aaron Bertrand Jul 5 '12 at 14:57
  • It's easier I think for bad edits to slip through a reviewer than for someone familiar with the problem and editing his own answer to let a bad edit through. So I think as a safe-guard they have made it so that multiple reviewers must approve (this is my guess). Bad edits that slip through has been a bugaboo for this site in the past, and less so with the need for multiple user's approval.
  • This may be even more important for rejected edits.
  • Note that you can always improve the edit, and thereby bypass the need for other reviewers.

For example, when editing SO questions, this appears for me:

enter image description here

I see 4 buttons -- Approve, Reject, Improve, and Skip. By pressing the Improve button, I am allowed to make changes (or not) to the edit and short-circuit its approval.

share|improve this answer
    
How can I improve the edit? It won't allow me to edit until its approved/rejected. –  Petah Dec 15 '13 at 21:28
    
@Petah: see edit to anwer. –  Hovercraft Full Of Eels Dec 15 '13 at 21:31
    
I'm not in the review section, it was on the actual question page. –  Petah Dec 15 '13 at 21:35
    
@Petah: hm, I see the same 4 buttons when checking the page, I believe. –  Hovercraft Full Of Eels Dec 15 '13 at 21:35

If I agree with the suggested edit I'll simply click agree. At first that seemed contrary to the normal "Instantly accept the changes I made" scenario, but it wasn't a big deal to me.

If I mostly agree with a suggested edit I'll improve it, which will immediately accept their suggestions plus accept my changes. And, that I think is a great solution to the problem.

If the suggested edit smells for almost any reason I'll reject it. Usually that's because some newbie has edited a submitted answer that doesn't belong to them instead of using the comments to recommend a change. Other times it's because a newbie has altered the original question, especially if that question, or answer, is from someone with a significantly higher reputation.

share|improve this answer

It's so that not just one person games with someone to earn the badges.

share|improve this answer
2  
Why would gaming only be happening on Stack Overflow, and not on other SE sites? –  Arjan Feb 10 '11 at 13:40
    
@Arjan - sheer numbers? –  Rory Alsop May 26 '11 at 15:27
    
Great idea!! :) –  muntoo Sep 2 '11 at 1:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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