I found only a bronze badge for accepting or rejecting suggested edits. Wouldn't it be a great idea to have a silver and gold version of this badge too?

For example a silver badge when a user has reviewed 500 suggested edits and a gold badge when 1000 reviews are achieved.

For the names I don't have any good ideas, expect for this two lame ideas:

  • Silver:

    enter image description here

  • Gold, one of:

    enter image description here enter image description here

  • 3
    Related: Make Proofreader a silver badge
    – a cat
    Apr 3, 2012 at 15:45
  • 3
    +1 I'd like to see 800 or so users who have proofreader badge battling it out to press the approve/reject on the handful of suggested edits that are around at any given time. Apr 3, 2012 at 19:40
  • 4
    @Some, you're not being sarcastic, are you? (source)
    – Arjan
    Jun 16, 2012 at 15:26
  • 1
    @Arjan Well, there is always going to be some of that, but the fact is that rejecting that edit would have given those users the same "benefit". My intention was not to amplify the gamification to a whole new level, but to motivate more people that have been active with it in the past to check out the queue again.
    – jonsca
    Jun 16, 2012 at 16:41
  • 1
    they ought to increase the vote limit. I'm running out of votes & there's a pile of suggested edits I can't do anything upon // @Arjan Jun 16, 2012 at 16:58
  • 1
    @Sathya more votes and more people who can see the edit queue would be great IMO
    – Ben Brocka
    Jun 16, 2012 at 17:07
  • @Arjan we should have a way to spam flag suggested edits....which gives -100 rep to those who approved them as well
    – Ben Brocka
    Jun 16, 2012 at 17:17
  • Gilles wrote this query data.stackexchange.com/stackoverflow/query/69781/… if people want to look at the spreads.
    – Mat
    Jun 16, 2012 at 17:57

2 Answers 2


I'm not convinced that these badges would be a good idea. (Note: as of the last data dump, I was first in line to get them.)

Badges have this nasty effect of making people act for the badge rather than for the good of the site. I already see this in the review queue: some reviewers evidently approve blindly (I've seen spam get approved…). I also see this on the edit side: it's happened a few times that a name comes up often under my Reject finger, and after a while I don't see the user editing anything — and I check his profile and find out he made exactly 500 approved edits (most of them mediocre) then stopped.

On the other hand, the suggested edit queue needs more reviewers. (Oh boy, yes, we need help! Please!) I think the most important thing to get more reviewers is a better user interface.

  • If you've tried reviewing edits on Stack Overflow and found it a drudgery, try again with Matt's suggested edit extension. You won't be seeing the same edit over and over and over any more.
  • Filtering by tags would help, too. (The same thing goes for flags.) Better have some tags with enough eyes and some tags lagging behind than the current state where reviewers have to make uninformed, harried decisions.

That being said, I think we could have two versions of the badge (three is overkill):

  • The bronze badge should be a starter badge, for the first time the user reviewed a suggested edit, just to make the user aware of the other side of the coin.
  • The silver badge should require more of a time commitment. The number should be higher than 100 (which you can get in less than 10 minutes over 2 days on SO if you click blindly), but not so high that it's out of reach of other sites. 400 would make it enough of a habit on Stack Overflow (you need to spend more than a week) while being achieved by a few people on Super User, Math, Ask Ubuntu, and several other SE2.0 sites (making it less hard to achieve than Generalist).
  • 3
    I've seen spam get approved… Yes, we've all seen those unfortunate examples, but I'm not convinced the badge has anything to do with it. The users who approved the spam had just as much incentive to reject it, I would think (unless we've gotten to the point in history where avoiding the 2 seconds it takes to do the reject dialog is a deciding factor, in which case, you're perhaps correct in making the UI suggestions).
    – jonsca
    Jun 18, 2012 at 2:03
  • @jonsca This is beyond my SEDE competence, but I'd like to see some statistics. Are there reviewers who go for the badge then stop? How does the proportion of Accept/Reject/Improve relate to the number and frequency of reviews? Jun 18, 2012 at 2:30
  • Certainly won't argue with you there. I was limiting myself to saying that I didn't think there was any reason why such a badge would promote false acceptances. In terms of the analyses you propose, I think there are a lot of existing badges to which you could apply the same scrutiny, though.
    – jonsca
    Jun 18, 2012 at 2:34
  • 1
    @jonsca Most of the silver and gold badges are something you have to work for and where your work is reviewed. The edit badges lack significant review if you have 2k rep, and the review badges have no quality control. So if there's to be a silver version here, I don't want to make it too easy to get. Ideally there should be a quota of Improve, but that can't easily be done as Improves aren't tracked currently. Jun 18, 2012 at 2:46
  • The suggested-edits-variants of the new Custodian/Reviewer/Steward badges provide bronze/silver/gold versions for proofreading. Therefore, I suggested that the Proofreader badge be abandoned as a separate badge (already earned badges coould be converted to a special kind of Custodian badge).
    – lockstep
    Sep 22, 2012 at 13:17

Marking this completed, since there are now three other badges you can get for reviewing suggested edits, including gold and silver.

Given the importance of having a broad audience reviewing these edits, I think it's fair to have a bit of extra recognition here.

You must log in to answer this question.

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