I would like to see a badge that rewards more careful reviewing of suggested edits. I think it could be based on the number of suggested edits that are rejected and the user voted to reject.

Wording and names open to suggestions.

  • Bronze, "Precise" - 50 votes to reject suggested edits that were rejected
  • Silver, "Meticulous" - 150 votes to reject suggested edits that were rejected
  • Gold, "Thorough" - 500 votes to reject suggested edits that were rejected

Partially inspired by Do suggested edit reviewers make judgments too hastily?. Seriously, this kind of edit needs to be discouraged...

Edit: A response to the claim that it's gameable -

  • On SO, multiple votes are needed for an edit to be approved or rejected, so by restricting to suggested edits that a ultimately rejected, this should eliminate most gaming there.
  • On sites where only one vote is needed to approve or reject a suggested edit, maybe the thresholds could be adjusted, but consider that the Proofreader badge already encourages reviewing rampantly, so at the very least this encourages diversity of voting while gaming the system, but hopefully, while being as gameable as the Proofreader badge it would also encourage better behavior in honest particapants.

Edit 2: Since so much of the discussion seems to be focused on saying this is a useless badge based on how gameable it could be, I am including a list of badges that a user can earn through careless hasty action, but which are intended to promote thoughtful citizenship. Feel free to chime in if you believe all the below badges are bad as well or if I've miscategorized one.

If I'm to believe that the reasons given below in the comments and answers establish my badge suggestion as a bad idea, can I assume that 26 out of 69 total current badges are also bad? Or is the fact that 37% of badges are built out this way enough to call the substance of those reasons into question?

  • 6
    brb, rejecting 500 votes. – Won't Nov 30 '11 at 18:07
  • @ಠ_ಠWon't Don't people already review hastily to get the "Reviewer" badge? Not sure how your criticism applies unless that badge is also a bad idea. – jball Nov 30 '11 at 18:10
  • Er, make that the "Proofreader" badge, not the "Reviewer" badge. – jball Nov 30 '11 at 18:24
  • If so, that's another badge I can get for bad behavior! Awesome. – Won't Nov 30 '11 at 18:47
  • @jball To get the Proofreader badge, you don't need to hastily review. You just need to review 100 suggested edits, but you are not forced to reject all of those; you can actually approve all of them. – kiamlaluno Nov 30 '11 at 18:51
  • @ಠ_ಠWon't I'm suprised then that you didn't weigh in on any of the discussions for that badge (1, 2, 3). Perhaps you voted, but I see no comments? – jball Nov 30 '11 at 18:52
  • @kiamlaluno That mistake is so 41 minutes ago - the badge I really meant to reference was the "Proofreader" badge. – jball Nov 30 '11 at 18:53
  • @jball: Eh. I only have so much time. I'd prefer spending it making snarky off-hand comments about stuff I didn't do. – Won't Nov 30 '11 at 18:54
  • 1
    @ಠ_ಠWon't if only there were badges for flippant remarks or lots of comments, then you'd really have an incentive to weigh in on those discussions. – jball Nov 30 '11 at 18:58
  • @jball You are still not forced to hastily review, as for the Proofreader badge you don't need to always reject suggestions. – kiamlaluno Nov 30 '11 at 19:00
  • 1
    @jball: I am rubber, you are glue. gets badge YES! – Won't Nov 30 '11 at 19:03
  • @kiamlaluno yet it seems that some reviewers are spurred on to haste by the "Proofreader" badge and then simply vote "Approve" on every edit (no matter how bad) that is suggested. I'm only asking for something to balance that out. – jball Nov 30 '11 at 19:03
  • @kiamlaluno more simply put, how does this suggestion force hasty reviewing anymore than any of the other "X amount of action" badges force hasty actions? – jball Nov 30 '11 at 19:05
  • @jball You are proposing this idea to make reviewers more careful, which is not the effect that would probably get. It's enough I search for edits already rejected by another user, and reject them too; or I can reject many edits, hoping that somebody else who wants to get the badges you propose would reject the edit too. Blindly rejecting an edit doesn't make the review more careful, or accurate. – kiamlaluno Nov 30 '11 at 19:57
  • @kiamlaluno, I've added a second edit with a more complete list of badges which I think invalidates your basic premise. It looks like a lot of badges are awarded for behavior which should arise from good citizenship, but can be achieved through careless action. I guess I assume that most users are good citizens (especially those users who have acheived higher privileges like reviewing suggested edits), and so will be motivated to good behavior by the badges, not just to callous gaming. – jball Nov 30 '11 at 21:41

I'm not really comfortable with a series of badges that amounts to "reject as fast as you can."

Technical problem

Given this is a problem on all Stack Exchange sites, and badges are generally rolled out to all Stack Exchange sites, a solution—particularly a badge solution—should be applicable to all sites on the network.

While this might work in theory on Stack Overflow, this would essentially amount to "n rejected edits" on every other site, where the approval threshold is one.

Behavioral problem

The idea behind badges (and gamification in general) is to get users to do things you want them to do. A badge that promotes wrong action or inaction is a terrible badge: you don't reward people for doing things you don't want them to do.

As such, this badge suggestion doesn't prompt people to be less hasty, it just encourages them to blindly reject any and all suggested edits, which isn't solving the stated reason for creating the badge series in the first place.

That is, to solve the problem of hasty edits, you want people to take more time in rejecting or approving edits. You absolutely want people to approve worthwhile edits, yet you only provided an incentive to reject edits.

Furthermore, you made the incentive so good there is no reason, ever, to approve suggested edits. Every approval I do puts me one review more away from getting my rejection gold badge. Reject all the things!

Think about it: if everyone followed the badge to the letter and rejected the next 500 suggest edits they see, would you think that'd be a good thing or a bad thing? I would hope you'd think it'd to be a terrible thing.

Proofreader badge

The Proofreader badge is not functionally or semantically similar to what you're suggesting. It encourages people to review, but it prescribes no action as the "better" one like your suggestion does. That's good, because there is no objectively better action. Bad edits should be rejected, just as good edits should be approved.

But the Proofreader badge isn't all that great to begin with: I agree that it doesn't promote positive behavior, but your suggestion takes the mediocrity and ineffectiveness of a "review suggested edits" badge and makes it actively harmful to the site.

  • I don't visit the other sites much, so I was not aware that they had single vote reviewing... not sure if there's a way to implement this only on SO? – jball Nov 30 '11 at 18:09
  • I'm curious about how you would respond to the point I made in my post edit about the "Proofreader" badge. – jball Nov 30 '11 at 18:36
  • @jball It's an irrelevant counterargument. Expanded my answer to explain why. – user149432 Nov 30 '11 at 19:09
  • I'm definitely open to ways to balance it better - I think the multiple reviewer requirement on SO would provide a mechanism for balance if the badge was for "Reject votes concurred minues reject votes overruled". As for the single vote review sites, I'm not sure about a good way to balance them. – jball Nov 30 '11 at 19:15
  • @jball I don't think it's particularly worthwhile to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic: I'm having a hard time seeing how rewarding people with badges in hopes it prompts them to approve things better would solve the problem at all. Badges are meant to reward straightforward actions: do n things, have n score, etc. Whether an edit is substantial enough is a judgement call that depends on each individual edit. – user149432 Nov 30 '11 at 19:18
  • Badges like "Deputy", "Disciplined", and "Sportsmanship" strain that claim beyond the breaking point in my opinion. All three are for doing things based on how either others react to them or on doing things that counteract your self-interest in other parts of the system. – jball Nov 30 '11 at 19:24
  • 2
    @jball Think about what you're arguing: we have a badge that rewards people for hopefully doing things correctly in a somewhat similar to Deputy or Sportsmanship: it's Proofreader. You admit the badge isn't effective for promoting the right action often enough. So your solution is to introduce a badge that only rewards one of two possible actions (reject). I'm having a hard time picturing how that helps at all: do you believe rejection is the only correct action? If so, why have the suggested edit feature at all? – user149432 Nov 30 '11 at 19:31
  • I have conceeded that I don't have a solution for the single vote review sites, but you seem to be straw-manning my idea for the SO multiple reviwer per edit system based on the single vote system. I can't say I appreciate the dismissal of the nuance in my position or the way you completely skipped over my previous criticism of your claim that "Badges are meant to reward straightforward actions". – jball Nov 30 '11 at 19:38

The multi-user requirement for rejecting an edit doesn't help if everyone's trying to get the badge. This would be gamed regardless and the site would suffer as a result.

  • The sites already suffering from bad edits being approved too quickly. A claim that this will increase the suffering only assumes that more people will be hasty, rather than encouraging some of the hasty people to slow down and vote based on the complete edit quality because they know their vote would be awarded or ignored in light of other peoples' votes. – jball Nov 30 '11 at 18:38
  • @jball I'm sure there's a solution better than this. I've seen good edits rejected too, not just bad ones approved. – Matthew Read Nov 30 '11 at 18:49
  • I think the number of good edits rejected is extremely low compared to the number of bad edits approved. While I would like it to be perfect, I think that, just like we encourage voting, and voting on questions, and voting on edit suggestions, we need to encourage balance in the voting. Most users have way imbalanced Approve/Reject vote ratios, and the people that want to game the system are already gaming it. I don't think my idea is perfect, but I'm hoping that it would provide balance to what's already there. – jball Nov 30 '11 at 18:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .