69

First time I've got the following message on SO:

Too many of your edits were rejected, try again in 7 days.

Although, I have made ~50 accepted edits this day.

I'm sure that should outweigh the ~5 rejected edits, right?

My suggestion:

bool allowEdit(USER u)
{
    if(u.rejected * 5 > u.accepted)
        return(false);
    else
        return(true);
}

Think of it this way: if I do a 1000 accepted edits, and mess up on 5 [rejected], does that mean I should get banned for 7 days?

Hmmm... There seems to be a bug; the message only appears when clicking edit from review.

But otherwise, I can't edit this question, even when going to it from the homepage.

Improve this question
8
  • 9
    So in other words, whether you can suggest edits should depend on the ratio of rejected to accepted (or total), rather than some fixed number.
    – Jeff Mercado
    Commented May 15, 2011 at 21:14
  • @JeffM Exactly.
    – Mateen Ulhaq
    Commented May 15, 2011 at 21:18
  • 12
    Or return (u.AcceptedEdits > u.RejectedEdits * 5); That way you don't have that nasty return true or return false for a boolean function.
    – George Stocker
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 16:53
  • @George This is more other-languages friendly, although, I must admit, that option hadn't occurred to me.
    – Mateen Ulhaq
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 16:59
  • 3
    @muntoo languages that don't treat boolean conditions as a first class type make me cry. Which languages are you referring to?
    – George Stocker
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 17:00
  • 3
    @George No idea, but I meant it to be "pseudocode" (in a way).
    – Mateen Ulhaq
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 17:01
  • (Also, 7 days is a long time to learn some small point that I didn't quite gather!)
    – Francisco Corrales Morales
    Commented Jan 24, 2014 at 22:59
  • 1
    Where can I view the reasons my edits were rejected?
    – user308037
    Commented Nov 15, 2015 at 20:31

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
47

I just amended it to take into account your accepts.

When deciding on whether we should ban or not, we now look at your last 7 days of activity.

If (rejects - (approvals / 3)) >= 5, you will be auto-banned.

Note that "rejects" is the count of rejections made by human users/moderators only, rejections made by the Community bot as a result of a conflict are ignored.

Improve this answer
6
  • 1
    is this with order of operations
    – Anish Gupta
    Commented Apr 10, 2012 at 15:30
  • 2
    @AnishGupta (rejects - (approvals / 3)) > 5. In other words, rejects are three times as sensitive as approvals.
    – Mateen Ulhaq
    Commented Apr 21, 2012 at 4:51
  • 8
    Looking at the last X days of activity has a simple problem: I have 1000 accepted edits. I go on vacation for a week, then when I return, some uninformed mods reject my 5 edits from the past hour. Now I'm banned. Please instead look at the last X edits.
    – Dan Dascalescu
    Commented Oct 7, 2012 at 5:17
  • 2
    Agree immensely with Dan Dascalescu. Seem's like it this should be weighted more based on a longer trend of activity. Granted I'm a noob on editing clearly (and an offender) but a week long ban is quite a nuisance when you never get a chance to stop and say oops better be careful I'm on thin ice, I'll stop and wait a minute.
    – UpAndAdam
    Commented May 1, 2013 at 19:35
  • 19
    @DanDascalescu If it looks only at the last X edits, then there is no way for the block to ever expire.
    – Boann
    Commented Feb 25, 2014 at 22:08
  • 1
    Just for clarification here, is an approval vs rejection defined as each reviewer's action of marking approve / reject on a suggestion, or as a suggestion itself being rejected (e.g., from receiving 3 rejects and 1 accept)?
    – Taylor D. Edmiston
    Commented Aug 27, 2017 at 19:19
7

I'm not sure I'm for this. While I do appreciate that someone is cleaning up posts that need it (the 50 approved edits), I wonder at the quality of those edits if > 5 were rejected.

I like that once you hit a decent number of rejects, the system says "hey, slow down". I don't like the idea that once a user spams a huge number of correct spelling changes they could also spam a bunch of poor edits as well.

Improve this answer
3
  • 11
    Everyone with enough edits gets some rejected. It's like the interview anti-loop
    – Nicole
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 17:46
  • 4
    @Renesis It's okay to have a bad edit every now and then, but if you cluster up a whole bunch of bad edits at once, that's rather annoying to deal with, I would imagine. It's something of a good reason for a single user to not queue up several dozen edits at once.
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 17:57
  • 2
    @GraceNote Then perhaps a rate limiter should be put in place before they send all of those edits?
    – UpAndAdam
    Commented May 1, 2013 at 19:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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