This has been my pet peeve for quite some time and I'm absolutely bustin' to do something about it.

From my totally unscientific casual observation the majority of the bad edit suggestions that I have checked into are made by people with under 1000 rep, and the approvals are usually done by users with under 5K rep, mostly in the 2K-4K range.

This annoys me a lot, because the approvers should know better. It's not the fault of the people making the suggestions - bad suggestions from well meaning people and worthless suggestions from people trying to work the system is an expected behaviour that the process should accommodate.

Taking into account my observations mentioned above, it's obvious to me that the reviewers need to be reviewed or audited. My suggestions on how to effect this are:

• establish a new Review Audit queue. This queue is accessible only by trusted users or those who have already accumulated considerable editing experience, i.e. the Copy Editor badge¹.

• the current edit suggestion mechanism remains the same. We know there will be bad suggestions, we're cool with that.

• any suggested edits that are approved soley by reviewers with <5K rep, or are approved by a margin of 3-2 are then sent to the Review Audit queue. Anything that appears in this queue has the original reviewers anonymised out - it doesn't matter to the auditor who the original reviewers are

• items that appear in this queue have an Approve button, an Undo button, and an Improve button, just like the existing suggested edit review queue

• the Undo button rolls back the edit approval, reverses any rep or incentive that was allocated, and optionally penalises a rep point or two from the original reviewers. As the original reviewers have been anonymised from the review there should be little or no chance for malicious reversal. If a small penalty is applied to the original reviewers it will hopefully make them think a little more carefully, as most users in that lower rep range still cherish every rep point they have. When a reviewer has been revoked a specific number of times (or reached a certain revoke/approve percentage) then their review capability can be automatically suspended for a period of time.

• the Improve button does what the existing improve button does, except it also removes any incentive the original reviewers got (i.e. reduces their review aggregate towards certain badges) but doesn't penalise them in any other way. Along with the already existing "This suggestion was helpful" checkbox good edits that were insufficiently thorough can be improved.

So this is a rough suggestion of a workflow that could have a positive impact on the problem and shouldn't take too much to implement. Amounts and numbers are suggestions and open for debate. The entire workflow is open for debate. Please discuss - this problem isn't going away anytime soon.

¹ Note that I didn't nominate the Steward badge, as getting this doesn't necessarily involve gaining much editing experience

This has been my pet peeve for quite some time and I'm absolutely bustin' to do something about it.

From my totally unscientific casual observation the majority of the bad edit suggestions that I have checked into are made by people with under 1000 rep, and the approvals are usually done by users with under 5K rep, mostly in the 2K-4K range.

This annoys me a lot, because the approvers should know better. It's not the fault of the people making the suggestions - bad suggestions from well meaning people and worthless suggestions from people trying to work the system is an expected behaviour that the process should accommodate.

Taking into account my observations mentioned above, it's obvious to me that the reviewers need to be reviewed or audited. My suggestions on how to effect this are:

• establish a new Review Audit queue. This queue is accessible only by trusted users or those who have already accumulated considerable editing experience, i.e. the Copy Editor badge¹.

• the current edit suggestion mechanism remains the same. We know there will be bad suggestions, we're cool with that.

• any suggested edits that are approved soley by reviewers with <5K rep, or are approved by a margin of 3-2 are then sent to the Review Audit queue. Anything that appears in this queue has the original reviewers anonymised out - it doesn't matter to the auditor who the original reviewers are

• items that appear in this queue have an Approve button, an Undo button, and an Improve button, just like the existing suggested edit review queue

• the Undo button rolls back the edit approval, reverses any rep or incentive that was allocated, and optionally penalises a rep point or two from the original reviewers. As the original reviewers have been anonymised from the review there should be little or no chance for malicious reversal. If a small penalty is applied to the original reviewers it will hopefully make them think a little more carefully, as most users in that lower rep range still cherish every rep point they have. When a reviewer has been revoked a specific number of times (or reached a certain revoke/approve percentage) then their review capability can be automatically suspended for a period of time.

• the Improve button does what the existing improve button does, except it also removes any incentive the original reviewers got (i.e. reduces their review aggregate towards certain badges) but doesn't penalise them in any other way. Along with the already existing "This suggestion was helpful" checkbox good edits that were insufficiently thorough can be improved.

So this is a rough suggestion of a workflow that could have a positive impact on the problem and shouldn't take too much to implement. Amounts and numbers are suggestions and open for debate. The entire workflow is open for debate. Please discuss - this problem isn't going away anytime soon.

¹ Note that I didn't nominate the Steward badge, as getting this doesn't necessarily involve gaining much editing experience

This has been my pet peeve for quite some time and I'm absolutely bustin' to do something about it.

From my totally unscientific casual observation the majority of the bad edit suggestions are made by people with under 1000 rep, and the approvals are usually done by users with under 5K rep, mostly in the 2K-4K range.

This annoys me a lot, because the approvers should know better. It's not the fault of the people making the suggestions - bad suggestions from well meaning people and worthless suggestions from people trying to work the system is an expected behaviour that the process should accommodate.

Taking into account my observations mentioned above, it's obvious to me that the reviewers need to be reviewed or audited. My suggestions on how to effect this are:

• establish a new Review Audit queue. This queue is accessible only by trusted users or those who have already accumulated considerable editing experience, i.e. the Copy Editor badge¹.

• the current edit suggestion mechanism remains the same. We know there will be bad suggestions, we're cool with that.

• any suggested edits that are approved soley by reviewers with <5K rep, or are approved by a margin of 3-2 are then sent to the Review Audit queue. Anything that appears in this queue has the original reviewers anonymised out - it doesn't matter to the auditor who the original reviewers are

• items that appear in this queue have an Approve button, an Undo button, and an Improve button, just like the existing suggested edit review queue

• the Undo button rolls back the edit approval, reverses any rep or incentive that was allocated, and optionally penalises a rep point or two from the original reviewers. As the original reviewers have been anonymised from the review there should be little or no chance for malicious reversal. If a small penalty is applied to the original reviewers it will hopefully make them think a little more carefully, as most users in that lower rep range still cherish every rep point they have. When a reviewer has been revoked a specific number of times (or reached a certain revoke/approve percentage) then their review capability can be automatically suspended for a period of time.

• the Improve button does what the existing improve button does, except it also removes any incentive the original reviewers got (i.e. reduces their review aggregate towards certain badges) but doesn't penalise them in any other way. Along with the already existing "This suggestion was helpful" checkbox good edits that were insufficiently thorough can be improved.

So this is a rough suggestion of a workflow that could have a positive impact on the problem and shouldn't take too much to implement. Amounts and numbers are suggestions and open for debate. The entire workflow is open for debate. Please discuss - this problem isn't going away anytime soon.

¹ Note that I didn't nominate the Steward badge, as getting this doesn't necessarily involve gaining much editing experience

This has been my pet peeve for quite some time and I'm absolutely bustin' to do something about it.

From my totally unscientific casual observation the majority of the bad edit suggestions that I have checked into are made by people with under 1000 rep, and the approvals are usually done by users with under 5K rep, mostly in the 2K-4K range.

This annoys me a lot, because the approvers should know better. It's not the fault of the people making the suggestions - bad suggestions from well meaning people and worthless suggestions from people trying to work the system is an expected behaviour that the process should accommodate.

Taking into account my observations mentioned above, it's obvious to me that the reviewers need to be reviewed or audited. My suggestions on how to effect this are:

• establish a new Review Audit queue. This queue is accessible only by trusted users or those who have already accumulated considerable editing experience, i.e. the Copy Editor badge¹.

• the current edit suggestion mechanism remains the same. We know there will be bad suggestions, we're cool with that.

• any suggested edits that are approved soley by reviewers with <5K rep, or are approved by a margin of 3-2 are then sent to the Review Audit queue. Anything that appears in this queue has the original reviewers anonymised out - it doesn't matter to the auditor who the original reviewers are

• items that appear in this queue have an Approve button, an Undo button, and an Improve button, just like the existing suggested edit review queue

• the Undo button rolls back the edit approval, reverses any rep or incentive that was allocated, and optionally penalises a rep point or two from the original reviewers. As the original reviewers have been anonymised from the review there should be little or no chance for malicious reversal. If a small penalty is applied to the original reviewers it will hopefully make them think a little more carefully, as most users in that lower rep range still cherish every rep point they have. When a reviewer has been revoked a specific number of times (or reached a certain revoke/approve percentage) then their review capability can be automatically suspended for a period of time.

• the Improve button does what the existing improve button does, except it also removes any incentive the original reviewers got (i.e. reduces their review aggregate towards certain badges) but doesn't penalise them in any other way. Along with the already existing "This suggestion was helpful" checkbox good edits that were insufficiently thorough can be improved.

So this is a rough suggestion of a workflow that could have a positive impact on the problem and shouldn't take too much to implement. Amounts and numbers are suggestions and open for debate. The entire workflow is open for debate. Please discuss - this problem isn't going away anytime soon.

¹ Note that I didn't nominate the Steward badge, as getting this doesn't necessarily involve gaining much editing experience