Timeline for Suggested edit system is causing grief, needs to be rethought
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:36 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Feb 24, 2014 at 4:02 | history | bounty ended | Matthew Lundberg | ||
| Feb 23, 2014 at 5:31 | comment | added | jscs | "Undo" may not be as simple as all that: if the post has been edited again between the approval and its revocation, a rollback is likely to require by-hand editing. | |
| Feb 18, 2014 at 8:51 | comment | added | Ian Ringrose | This could be done in a single queue, by only showing some review tasks to “very trusted users” and requiring that each review task if approved by at least 1 such user. | |
| Feb 16, 2014 at 22:11 | history | edited | slugster | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 29 characters in body
|
| Feb 13, 2014 at 5:02 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | My totally unscientific casual observation (based on reviewing a lot of suggested edits, but I didn't keep stats) doesn't show a correlation between bad edits and low reputation, nor between bad reviews and low reputation. | |
| Feb 13, 2014 at 3:16 | comment | added | slugster | @LowerClassOverflowian The issue with making the existing audit posts tougher is that we already get a steady stream of complaints through Meta about them, and because the audits are generated it would be hard to make them tougher to pass without also increasing the number of false negatives that currently happen (the number of people who fail a questionable generated audit). I think the current audits have had a bit of effect, but not a lot - personally I've never had a problem spotting them. | |
| Feb 13, 2014 at 2:17 | history | answered | slugster | CC BY-SA 3.0 |