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.

In addition to "accept", "reject" and "improve", I'd like to be able to "ignore" a suggested edit. I would use this when I don't feel I understand the content well enough to do any of the existing options.

This would allow me to clear out everything from the list, so the little counter in the page header would be more useful. Right now I'm not sure if "5" is the same 5 suggested edits that I didn't want to take any action on, or if they are new.

share|improve this question

4 Answers 4

I don't know if this is feasible. The three current options, "accept", "reject", and "improve" affect the global state of the post. An "ignore" option would only be specific to you, so it would require a separate piece of information to be stored for each user who viewed the suggested edit.

share|improve this answer
2  
-1: Of course it is feasible. It does not have to be a separate database entry/table etc. A possibly simple way would be to use browser cookies. Of course, it might not be worth the effort to implement such a feature as suggested edits tend to disappear quickly by themselves... –  Aryabhatta Mar 21 '11 at 20:04
6  
@Moron: "might not be worth the effort to implement such a feature" is what "not feasible" means. –  Bill the Lizard Mar 21 '11 at 20:05
    
No, it might be feasible, but still might not be worth the effort... Besides, your answer seems to indicate a separate entry in database would be required. The -1 still stands :-) –  Aryabhatta Mar 21 '11 at 20:08
    
@Moron: Fixed that for you. –  Bill the Lizard Mar 21 '11 at 20:27
    
can't we have a compromise though? I think a button that just hides the suggestion (like the accept and reject do) should be good enough. We don't even need to store any data server0side if we accept not having a "you voted to ignore" this edit message like we have for accepted posts. –  hugomg Nov 26 '11 at 17:08
    
Bill, of course a database solution would be overkill, but couldn't the "ignore" information just be stored in SESSION? That seems to be an easy solution and it would improve reviewing a lot. –  Tomas Apr 2 '12 at 12:28
    
Don't forget local storage :) –  Tim Post Apr 2 '12 at 12:43

I would suggest 'not sure' as the button text, as that's really the only reason to skip an edit in the queue. Moderators currently have this ability when dealing with certain types of chat flags, and it serves the same purpose. Don't show us a number that makes us want to do something if there's nothing we can do about it.

As for the complexity, I'm not sure of that. Perhaps local storage would be sufficient? That would work for most people, unless you changed computers (or wiped out storage). Then again, this might be something that could soak in a user script for a while.

My concern with cookie / local storage is the amount of clutter.

share|improve this answer
    
Tim, what about storing in the SESSION at server, as I proposed? –  Tomas Apr 2 '12 at 12:51
    
Anyway, I like "Ignore" more than "Not sure" - I also invented "Ignore" independently before I saw this question. It is also coherent with other buttons, there is always action: "Reject", "Accept", "Improve"... so "Ignore" fits best. But this is of least importance... –  Tomas Apr 2 '12 at 12:53
    
I think this would be quite useful for encouraging people to review edits more - when the queue is small it's easy to get swamped in the "not sure" edits, e.g. at the moment I have literally no idea on stackoverflow.com/suggested-edits/266939 stackoverflow.com/suggested-edits/266462 stackoverflow.com/suggested-edits/266864 stackoverflow.com/suggested-edits/266314 and I've been shown them at least 3 or 4 times this evening. –  Flexo May 18 '12 at 23:55

The new /review setup adds a "Not Sure" button to every suggested edit, so this is now implemented.

share|improve this answer

I agree with Bill the Lizard that a database solution would be overkill in this case, since you would need to store User-Edit specific information. But the "ignore" information could just be stored in SESSION, that would be enough. This seems to be an easy solution and it would improve reviewing a lot!

share|improve this answer
4  
...what session? You make a false assumption we even have a session... –  Nick Craver Apr 2 '12 at 13:12
    
uh.. oh... website without sessions? Seems like you started completely new era in web development (or maybe just new to me? :)) –  Tomas Apr 2 '12 at 14:47
1  
The latter :) This isn't really a new thing, we just don't have sessions like that. We have a record that you're logged in on a shared redis instance (to match your login cookie) but that's it...no other data stored there. –  Nick Craver Apr 3 '12 at 10:50

You must log in to answer this question.