I know there are quite some questions around about this topic, but still I'd like to say something about it.

IMO, the logical way of editing should be something like:

  • novice user - no editing rights
  • advanced user - can edit (needs approval), can approve edits with 2 approvals needed, ties in approval need to be solved by 3rd user *
  • expert user - can instant-edit, can instant-approve (no second person needed), approval on edits which already have 1 approval (from an advanced user) does have more weight, thus no ties will occur *

* approval meaning either approve/reject in this context

Also it would be nice to make it dependent on the experience of the user (having badge in at least one of the tags/having editor badges) rather than depending solely on Reputation.

Maybe this is against the simplicity-rule of SO, but the system as it is atm is not very convincing.

edit in Reply to Wladimirs comment:

at the moment, the point that bothers me most is having instant-edit rights but to approve a post, there are two reviewers needed regardless of experience. Also the advanced approval right could be granted earlier to accustom users to participate on SO. Also the persons who approved/rejected an edit are visible at least in the devtools on 10k rep. But i wouldn't mind including it directly in the history page of the question/answer.

  • 11
    Your post might be more convincing if you explained what you consider wrong with the current system and how your proposal is going to solve that. Jun 20, 2012 at 9:36
  • Moderators are considered expert users already as our approve/reject votes are binding :) Jun 20, 2012 at 9:48
  • @Bolt Don't you think it makes sense to have more people than just the moderators with those rights since there are a lot of people with expert knowledge here on SO?
    – Christoph
    Jun 20, 2012 at 9:52
  • possible duplicate of Why multiple approvers for proposed edits
    – sth
    Jun 20, 2012 at 10:56
  • @sth I can't see the duplicate...
    – Christoph
    Jun 20, 2012 at 11:33
  • I don't think this is a duplicate, but that link is certainly related.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Jun 20, 2012 at 16:22
  • +1 for making it dependent on badges. Oct 17, 2012 at 18:04
  • The other half of your question seems like a dupe of Giving edit privilege based on number of trustworthy edits.
    – Pops
    Oct 17, 2012 at 19:18
  • Also, the system just increased the number of reviewers needed from one to two on most sites and two to three on SO. While your claim seems correct superficially, actual user behavior shows that people clearly treat editing and reviewing edits differently.
    – Pops
    Oct 17, 2012 at 19:21

1 Answer 1


I think that the big difference between editing yourself and approving an edit by somebody else is the editor name being displayed. In the former case it will be your name - you edited the post and you take responsibility for your edit. When approving an edit you are merely the approver however. Your name will not be visible (other than via two clicks) and you likely didn't put much effort into verifying the edit either. In particular, an approver is likely to lack context and topic knowledge, an editor is supposed to have both.

This is a rather lengthy introduction to a simple statement: in my experience, people are far less likely to be wrong with their own edit than they are with somebody's else edit that they merely approve. This unfortunately applies to experienced users as well (I already approved a spam edit once - fortunately I wasn't the only approver). So the current approach to require consensus for approvals is justified.

You must log in to answer this question.

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