Timeline for Decision on rejected edits should be displayed as a notification to the editor
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
58 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2021 at 14:39 | comment | added | Henke - Нава́льный П с м | [...] unless they critically checked each suggestion in their profile. I doubt anybody would do this Speak for yourself. - I do this frequently! And I sometimes do it even if my suggested edit was accepted. | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 10:59 | comment | added | Michael Freidgeim | As "edit was rejected" notification message was not implemented (despite to "status-completed"), the new "Add global notifications for rejected edits (No, I don't mean the edit warning prompt)" feature request is available for vote(it is not a duplicate) | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:50 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/ with https://raspberrypi.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 2, 2016 at 16:30 | comment | added | mattgately | How do I upvote this original question, but not the update? The update is really just a link to an answer with a different resolution than the post was requesting? This should have been handled via a comment on that answer and not an update to the original question, since the original question was already considered by so many people. | |
| Aug 21, 2014 at 20:10 | history | edited | Shog9 |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Apr 13, 2014 at 15:08 | history | edited | slhck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 396 characters in body
|
| S Feb 21, 2014 at 14:37 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Feb 21, 2014 at 14:37 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Feb 13, 2014 at 12:52 | history | bounty started | Bart | ||
| S Feb 13, 2014 at 12:52 | history | notice added | Bart | Draw attention | |
| S Jul 21, 2013 at 12:28 | history | bounty ended | Manishearth | ||
| S Jul 21, 2013 at 12:28 | history | notice removed | Manishearth | ||
| S Jul 13, 2013 at 17:07 | history | bounty started | Manishearth | ||
| S Jul 13, 2013 at 17:07 | history | notice added | Manishearth | Authoritative reference needed | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 7:44 | answer | added | Tobias Kienzler | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 19, 2012 at 19:45 | answer | added | supervacuo | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 24, 2012 at 12:41 | comment | added | slhck | @Dan I could do that.. However, my primary concern is users who have really done something wrong. It would of course make sense to show both accepted and rejected, I wonder though why nobody's brought that up before.. | |
| Jun 24, 2012 at 10:36 | comment | added | Daniel Beck | Could you mock up "Your edits on [topic] and three others were reviewed, click here to learn more", "Your edit on [topic] was approved, click here to learn more" notifications? Maybe we should just add all of them, both approval and rejections... | |
| Jun 22, 2012 at 22:43 | history | notice removed | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | ||
| Jun 22, 2012 at 22:43 | history | bounty ended | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | ||
| Jun 22, 2012 at 20:29 | answer | added | Shog9 | timeline score: 128 | |
| Jun 22, 2012 at 20:14 | answer | added | ACarter | timeline score: 44 | |
| Jun 22, 2012 at 17:08 | history | edited | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added an example of why not providing visible feedback sucks
|
| Jun 20, 2012 at 16:01 | comment | added | Flexo - Save the data dump | Maximum number of edits and Tag editing limits - Give us a chance seem to indicate that this would be a useful feature | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 21:42 | answer | added | jmort253 | timeline score: 25 | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 17:44 | history | notice added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | Current answers are outdated | |
| Jun 16, 2012 at 17:44 | history | bounty started | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | ||
| May 29, 2012 at 9:08 | history | edited | slhck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 363 characters in body
|
| May 29, 2012 at 1:33 | history | edited | animusonStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| May 9, 2012 at 1:31 | history | notice removed | Rob Hruska | ||
| May 9, 2012 at 1:31 | history | bounty ended | Rob Hruska | ||
| May 7, 2012 at 22:12 | answer | added | jmort253 | timeline score: 13 | |
| May 2, 2012 at 0:32 | history | notice added | Rob Hruska | Draw attention | |
| May 2, 2012 at 0:32 | history | bounty started | Rob Hruska | ||
| Apr 10, 2012 at 21:04 | answer | added | MiMo | timeline score: 33 | |
| Feb 26, 2012 at 20:02 | history | notice removed | slhck | ||
| Feb 26, 2012 at 20:02 | history | bounty ended | slhck | ||
| Feb 24, 2012 at 19:48 | answer | added | Chris Frederick | timeline score: 66 | |
| Feb 24, 2012 at 18:15 | answer | added | Jeff Atwood | timeline score: 30 | |
| Feb 20, 2012 at 17:18 | history | edited | slhck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 301 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2012 at 17:14 | history | notice added | slhck | Draw attention | |
| Feb 20, 2012 at 17:14 | history | bounty started | slhck | ||
| Feb 14, 2012 at 22:12 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Feb 14, 2012 at 22:12 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| Feb 8, 2012 at 16:57 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | @Daniel: Well, they're suggested edit still exists, just declined. Maybe they could set it up so that new suggested edit != old suggested edit. There's not really a great way of countering this because they could just change a couple spaces that were not changed before to fool it, and we don't want to use substantial difference criterion because it could potentially forbid them from submitting a further suggested edit. | |
| Feb 7, 2012 at 21:36 | answer | added | Andonuts | timeline score: -9 | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 20:22 | history | notice added | Rob Hruska | Draw attention | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 20:22 | history | bounty started | Rob Hruska | ||
| Jan 29, 2012 at 21:09 | comment | added | Daniel Beck | Do we already have some sort of protection against repeated identical suggested edits? That's the one thing I fear, users will try to do their same edits repeatedly until they get accepted, and then they're in. So if this were introduced, making everybody immediately aware of rejected edits (and possibly flags as suggested by @BoltClock'saUnicorn), we probably should get some sort of "suggested edit spam filter". | |
| Jan 29, 2012 at 19:05 | comment | added | slhck | @BoltClock'saUnicorn Now that you say it, that actually make sense and add to some consistency. | |
| Jan 29, 2012 at 18:59 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod | If this gets implemented, the same needs to be done for declined flags. | |
| Jan 29, 2012 at 15:22 | history | edited | slhck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more concise title
|
| Jan 29, 2012 at 15:17 | comment | added | slhck | @DanielBeck Last time I checked there was one sitting for 13 hours waiting to be accepted or rejected. | |
| Jan 29, 2012 at 14:58 | comment | added | Matt | I'm not sure how related this is, but I'd also be keen to get feedback on which of my suggested edit votes were overruled (I guess this is a unique problem for Stack Overflow as all(?) the other sites only require 1 vote, where as SO requires 2). Feedback on both sides lets a) the reviewers how to vote correctly, and b) the editors how to edit correctly. | |
| Jan 29, 2012 at 14:43 | comment | added | Daniel Beck | ... especially given the time span between suggesting and having it accepted. On smaller sites than SO, this can be a while. Even on SU, I have seen suggested edits for 1+ hours in the queue. | |
| Jan 29, 2012 at 14:19 | history | asked | slhck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |