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.

It's not consistent to leave an edit pending for approval (thus not making available for everyone else and locking its state) after a user who has those privileges have given his endorsement.

You could say why don't I improve the edit, but that makes no sense for something that is correct and it would not follow the "keep it simple" policy.

Update:

This is the current time line:

  1. Someone who doesn't know about formatting makes a question. It's not legible
  2. A user without edit privileges amends the formatting. The correction is not visible, still not legible.
  3. I see the question and the pending revision and then cast my approval. It doesn't take effect yet, still not legible. Even for me if I didn't take care of copying the question source because it disappears from my own revision page!

I might agree that one's approval is indicative of both revision's quality and editor's competence. But we should retain that the main objective is to ask and answer questions. So, I propose this model:

  1. Someone who doesn't know about formatting makes a question. It's not legible
  2. A user without edit privileges amends the formatting. The correction is not visible, still not legible.
  3. A user with edit privileges cast his approval. Revision takes effect. Although it keeps the pending approval (the Edit (1) button).
  4. If a second user with edit privileges cast a rejection, it also takes effect as a rollback.
share|improve this question
    
"locking its state" is kinda meaningless in this case, since if it did need further edits you'd just hit "Improve". –  Shog9 Apr 2 '11 at 20:11
    
@Shog9: I'm concerned about the case in wich there is no need to improve anything, but disregarding my approval, it remains locked. –  user150068 Apr 2 '11 at 20:23
    
@Alejandro: right, but in your scenario the edit-lock is meaningless because it doesn't need further improvement. IOW, it's locked, but you have a key, should you have need of it. –  Shog9 Apr 2 '11 at 20:26
    
@Shog9: Why do I need to "improve" something I don't want to? Why my endorsement as a user with edit privilege is not enough to make this revision effective? Why there should be the need of someone else' approval? –  user150068 Apr 2 '11 at 20:31
    
@Shog9: I answer a lot of questions with markup. The correct formatting is a requirement to answer. –  user150068 Apr 2 '11 at 20:36
    
@alejandro: the answer to that question can be found here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/81509/… –  Shog9 Apr 3 '11 at 0:09
    
@Shog9: Useful link! But mine is a feature request, I think. –  user150068 Apr 3 '11 at 4:01
    
@Alejandro: that's why this isn't closed as a duplicate. However, I wanted you to understand the rationale behind the existing behavior. –  Shog9 Apr 3 '11 at 4:07
5  
I am in complete agreement here. I saw a problem, I wanted to edit the question, someone who did not have edit permissions had already submitted the same exact edit. I approved his edit, but now it's sitting around waiting for another approval. If the question wasn't locked pending this second approval, I would simply make this exact same edit myself with my own permissions. It shouldn't need to wait for the second approval. This is pretty backwards. –  Erick Robertson May 11 '11 at 13:29
    
Posting a new question. –  Erick Robertson May 11 '11 at 13:30
add comment

5 Answers

It keeps coming up where I see a good edit, hit approve and the edit isn't immediately approved but takes one more vote. If I instead hit the improve button, then I can edit it to my heart's content and it will automatically be approved, since I have full edit privileges.

It really doesn't make much sense to have to go through an extra step (and have my name show, when I really didn't do any work) to approve an edit, but it also doesn't make sense to have to wait for a second approver since any edits I would have done on my own would be automatically implemented anyway.

Let's just let the approve go through when a user with edit privileges does the approving.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Why you ask?

Because "correct" is open to interpretation http://stackoverflow.com/tools/suggested-edits?filter=week&tab=controversial (Note: You need 10K rep to see this page.)

In particular we are seeing 268 (out of 1950 edits) a week where there is a disagreement on the term "correct"

share|improve this answer
    
@waffles: If some posts get wrong editions (by any means) we should expect that further revisions from the community will correct that. –  user150068 Apr 3 '11 at 3:54
    
Sure but it is way cheaper not to approve stuff in the first place. –  waffles Apr 3 '11 at 8:47
2  
@waffles: Now days, if I see a question with wrong formatting (hiding markup i.e.) wich has a pending revision from an user with no such privilege, I will enter into revision page an approve the edit if it's correct... but that is not enough to make it effective (not even for me because I've already vote) loosing the chance to answer. I see the point about making the editors population bigger but up to day mechanism makes the experience for old user more... dificult. –  user150068 Apr 3 '11 at 22:37
    
That link is dead. –  Awesome Poodles Jun 14 '11 at 4:50
    
@Brock the link is fine, you just need 10k rep to see it –  waffles Jun 14 '11 at 5:13
    
OK, I'll retract my vote if/when the edit goes through. –  Awesome Poodles Jun 14 '11 at 6:36
add comment

The asker did not know or understand the {} to format code. Now the question is meaningless. A low flair user formatted the code. It is not visible and someone else also need to approve it. In the mean time the question is voted down since it does not make sense. I do not see why I cannot just approve the edit which is IDENTICAL to what I would have done: highlight the code and click the {} button.

share|improve this answer
    
@mplunggjan: Yes, this is exactly the case I'd made. –  user150068 May 1 '11 at 23:09
2  
+1 I'm here because I've just experienced the exact same scenario. I understand that SO needs more editors and needs fewer shonky questions, so perhaps this is status-by-design. But it also has the effect of discouraging established editors, who are likely to make more changes than newbies and so will have wasted more time when their edits get blocked. Sure I can apply my changes as improvements to the pending change. But having to do my work all over again isn't much of an incentive. –  APC May 29 '11 at 9:21
    
+1. Note that it's possible, if I click Improve, and the OK, the change will take effect immediately (only I take credit for it, rather then the original editor). It should be done this way. –  Second Rikudo Dec 1 '11 at 16:56
    
@Truth The problem is that this happens infrequently. When it does, I just "oh, look - approve the edit" damn. I forgot that now I'm STUCK. I can't cancel my approve and submit the edit myself. I can't push through the edit. Now it's stuck. –  Erick Robertson Dec 5 '11 at 12:45
add comment

How about instant rejections? If I see an edit that replaces one typo with another, I want to fix it. If I hit "Improve", I can fix it but the original editor gets 2 points for it. If I hit "Reject", the editor doesn't get rep, but I can't fix the original typo, either.

Maybe a "Reject and Improve" button would work.

share|improve this answer
    
That's been suggested recently but I can't find the post at the moment. –  ChrisF Apr 3 '11 at 16:33
1  
@ChrisF the thread with these suggestions can be found here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/83721/… –  Mia Clarke Apr 3 '11 at 17:48
    
I knew my suggestion sounded familiar! –  Gabe Apr 3 '11 at 17:59
add comment

When you edit something you are overtly supporting the new content. When you approve someone else's edit you are making a less strong statement of agreement. You're reinforcing someone else's idea, not putting forth your own. As such, it makes sense to me that it take more than one person to approve an edit.

share|improve this answer
    
declined: You wrote "When you approve someone else's edit you are making a less strong statement of agreement". In logic that's a petition of principle. –  user150068 Apr 3 '11 at 4:00
3  
@Alejandro: status-declined made a very important point. To repeat it in different words: For a dedicated user, approving a bad edit is a lot easier than performing it (citing a comment of myself on this related question). –  Hendrik Vogt Apr 3 '11 at 13:11
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.