Commonmark migration
Source Link

It was (re-)introduced to ensure quality edits, for which Jeff says:

Beyond that, we may have to move back to my original plan cough of multiple reviewers which everyone hated and nobody understood.

 

Do you understand it now? :)

And:

2. we have multiple votes on suggested edits exclusively for Stack Overflow due to volume. We were seeing a lot of very bad edits get approved by single users.

With the multiple reviewers: if two reviewers disagree, then a third reviewer is needed. According to a comment from waffles, this goes both ways:

I am seeing a fair bit of edits that have 1 approve vote and 2 reject votes - and the opposite. It is totally clear that if we leave this up to one person the wrong kind of stuff can get approved and the right stuff rejected.

It was (re-)introduced to ensure quality edits, for which Jeff says:

Beyond that, we may have to move back to my original plan cough of multiple reviewers which everyone hated and nobody understood.

 

Do you understand it now? :)

And:

2. we have multiple votes on suggested edits exclusively for Stack Overflow due to volume. We were seeing a lot of very bad edits get approved by single users.

With the multiple reviewers: if two reviewers disagree, then a third reviewer is needed. According to a comment from waffles, this goes both ways:

I am seeing a fair bit of edits that have 1 approve vote and 2 reject votes - and the opposite. It is totally clear that if we leave this up to one person the wrong kind of stuff can get approved and the right stuff rejected.

It was (re-)introduced to ensure quality edits, for which Jeff says:

Beyond that, we may have to move back to my original plan cough of multiple reviewers which everyone hated and nobody understood.

Do you understand it now? :)

And:

2. we have multiple votes on suggested edits exclusively for Stack Overflow due to volume. We were seeing a lot of very bad edits get approved by single users.

With the multiple reviewers: if two reviewers disagree, then a third reviewer is needed. According to a comment from waffles, this goes both ways:

I am seeing a fair bit of edits that have 1 approve vote and 2 reject votes - and the opposite. It is totally clear that if we leave this up to one person the wrong kind of stuff can get approved and the right stuff rejected.

replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

It was (re-)introducedwas (re-)introduced to ensure quality edits, for which Jeff says:

Beyond that, we may have to move back to my original plan cough of multiple reviewers which everyone hated and nobody understood.

Do you understand it now? :)

AndAnd:

2. we have multiple votes on suggested edits exclusively for Stack Overflow due to volume. We were seeing a lot of very bad edits get approved by single users.

With the multiple reviewers: if two reviewers disagree, then a third reviewer is needed. According to a commenta comment from waffles, this goes both ways:

I am seeing a fair bit of edits that have 1 approve vote and 2 reject votes - and the opposite. It is totally clear that if we leave this up to one person the wrong kind of stuff can get approved and the right stuff rejected.

It was (re-)introduced to ensure quality edits, for which Jeff says:

Beyond that, we may have to move back to my original plan cough of multiple reviewers which everyone hated and nobody understood.

Do you understand it now? :)

And:

2. we have multiple votes on suggested edits exclusively for Stack Overflow due to volume. We were seeing a lot of very bad edits get approved by single users.

With the multiple reviewers: if two reviewers disagree, then a third reviewer is needed. According to a comment from waffles, this goes both ways:

I am seeing a fair bit of edits that have 1 approve vote and 2 reject votes - and the opposite. It is totally clear that if we leave this up to one person the wrong kind of stuff can get approved and the right stuff rejected.

It was (re-)introduced to ensure quality edits, for which Jeff says:

Beyond that, we may have to move back to my original plan cough of multiple reviewers which everyone hated and nobody understood.

Do you understand it now? :)

And:

2. we have multiple votes on suggested edits exclusively for Stack Overflow due to volume. We were seeing a lot of very bad edits get approved by single users.

With the multiple reviewers: if two reviewers disagree, then a third reviewer is needed. According to a comment from waffles, this goes both ways:

I am seeing a fair bit of edits that have 1 approve vote and 2 reject votes - and the opposite. It is totally clear that if we leave this up to one person the wrong kind of stuff can get approved and the right stuff rejected.

Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
Source Link

It was (re-)introduced to ensure quality edits, for which Jeff says:

  

Beyond that, we may have to move back to my original plan cough of multiple reviewers which everyone hated and nobody understood.

  

Do you understand it now? :)

And:

  

2. we we have multiple votes on suggested edits exclusively for Stack Overflow due to volume. We were seeing a lot of very bad edits get approved by single users.

With the multiple reviewers: if two reviewers disagree, then a third reviewer is needed. According to a comment from waffles, this goes both ways:

  

I am seeing a fair bit of edits that have 1 approve vote and 2 reject votes - and the opposite. It is totally clear that if we leave this up to one person the wrong kind of stuff can get approved and the right stuff rejected.

It was (re-)introduced to ensure quality edits, for which Jeff says:

 

Beyond that, we may have to move back to my original plan cough of multiple reviewers which everyone hated and nobody understood.

 

Do you understand it now? :)

And:

 

2. we have multiple votes on suggested edits exclusively for Stack Overflow due to volume. We were seeing a lot of very bad edits get approved by single users.

With the multiple reviewers: if two reviewers disagree, then a third reviewer is needed. According to a comment from waffles, this goes both ways:

 

I am seeing a fair bit of edits that have 1 approve vote and 2 reject votes - and the opposite. It is totally clear that if we leave this up to one person the wrong kind of stuff can get approved and the right stuff rejected.

It was (re-)introduced to ensure quality edits, for which Jeff says:

 

Beyond that, we may have to move back to my original plan cough of multiple reviewers which everyone hated and nobody understood.

 

Do you understand it now? :)

And:

 

2. we have multiple votes on suggested edits exclusively for Stack Overflow due to volume. We were seeing a lot of very bad edits get approved by single users.

With the multiple reviewers: if two reviewers disagree, then a third reviewer is needed. According to a comment from waffles, this goes both ways:

 

I am seeing a fair bit of edits that have 1 approve vote and 2 reject votes - and the opposite. It is totally clear that if we leave this up to one person the wrong kind of stuff can get approved and the right stuff rejected.

Migration of MSO links to MSE links
Source Link
Loading
Added comment from waffles
Source Link
Arjan
  • 27.8k
  • 18
  • 104
  • 174
Loading
added 287 characters in body
Source Link
Arjan
  • 27.8k
  • 18
  • 104
  • 174
Loading
Source Link
Arjan
  • 27.8k
  • 18
  • 104
  • 174
Loading