Timeline for Suggested edit system is causing grief, needs to be rethought
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 23, 2014 at 18:26 | comment | added | James | But the suggester did not help the site, they did harm in way of a bad edit and users time wasted reviewing it. Why let them have their rep points? And beyond that, why not deter them by penalising them where it hurts - their precious rep? We need penalties to those who cause problems, to deter them and/or make them improve their ways. If reviewers are accepting bad edits which are later rolledback, then penalise the reviewers too. I did not mention this as I don't know enough about rollbacks or edit reviewing to delve into it. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 4:26 | comment | added | Matthew Lundberg | I don't agree that the suggester should lose reputation for bad suggestions. Reviewers who accept bad edits are another story. See slugster's answer. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 3:57 | comment | added | James | 2 strikes are required in a week, isn't that fair based on the time wasted to fix it? You only lose 1 rep point for 2 roll backs, as you gained 4 from the edits. I don't think that's harsh for two strikes and a waste of other users time. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 3:48 | comment | added | Matthew Lundberg | I don't think there should be a penalty above the rollback of the rep for a rollback of an edit. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 3:42 | history | answered | James | CC BY-SA 3.0 |