Don't get me wrong, I like the review system. But I think it can be even better.

The problem with bad reviewers, is that there is no automatic way to stop a person from reviewing. The only tool a bad reviewer has to improve himself, is looking at the results of other reviewers. And of course common sense.

In my opinion the system is a bit in favor of accepting:

1. Accepting is easy, it only takes asingle click, no thinking required. And twenty days of fifty clicks gives you a gold badge.
2. Reject votes are not visible unless you click on reject. So there is no visible sign that an edit is suspect.
3. You get badges and your name is shown in a top 20 list if you have enough clicks that day.

Some imporvements could be:

1. In order to be accepted, each reject vote should be countered by two approve votes. So if normally three votes are required to accept an edit, it needs five if it has a single reject vote.
2. There should be a visible clue if a reject vote has been cast.

Ideally there should be a mechanism to stop bad reviewers. But the problem is that this requires a review of the reviewers. Maybe a way to flag accepted edits that are wrong, and a certain amount of flags stops the person from reviewing for a time. But that mechanism is vulnerable for misuse.

Another problem is minor edits. Often an edit is good, but it is too minor (one typo, one tag). So maybe we need an accept as minor. which preserves the edit, but the suggester gets no reward other that the eternal fame.

Don't get me wrong, I like the review system. But I think it can be even better.

The problem with bad reviewers is that there is no automatic way to stop a person from reviewing. The only tool a bad reviewer has to improve himself, is looking at the results of other reviewers. And of course common sense.

In my opinion the system is a bit in favor of accepting:

1. Accepting is easy, it only takes a single click, no thinking required. And twenty days of fifty clicks gives you a gold badge.
2. Reject votes are not visible unless you click on "reject". So there is no visible sign that an edit is suspect.
3. You get badges and your name is shown in a top 20 list if you have enough clicks that day.

Some improvements could be:

1. In order to be accepted, each reject vote should be countered by two approve votes. So if normally three votes are required to accept an edit, it needs five if it has a single reject vote.
2. There should be a visible clue if a reject vote has been cast.

Ideally there should be a mechanism to stop bad reviewers. But the problem is that this requires a review of the reviewers. Maybe a way to flag accepted edits that are wrong, and a certain amount of flags stops the person from reviewing for a time. But that mechanism is vulnerable for misuse.

Another problem is minor edits. Often an edit is good, but it is too minor (one typo, one tag). So maybe we need an accept as minor. Which preserves the edit, but the suggester gets no reward other than the eternal fame.