Possible Duplicate:
Why multiple approvers for proposed edits

With over 2K reputation, a user can edit a post without anyone else having to review it, however, when that same over 2K user reviews someone else's edit, his vote is not enough to approve the edit, and a second is needed.

I understand that poor editing was being done when only one reviewer was enough in the past, but, does it make sense that a user is allowed to make his own changes, but needs backup to approve someone else's? Note that he could have made those changes himself, and he wouldn't need anyone's approval...

Agreed, if he's motivated enough to edit a post, he's probably paying attention, but then maybe this has to be told to the edit voting user. What do you think? I have a feeling I'm stepping onto a topic that's been beaten to death already, from the already asked questions ;)

  • 1
    I see this all the time. I find a post that I could edit, discover that someone else has already edited. I go to approve it and my approval needs someone else's ok before it goes through. Whereas if I had made the edit myself, it would already be published. Seems like a 10K approval of a < 2K edit should eliminate the need for a third set of eyes.
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Jul 5, 2012 at 13:31
  • I filed a related request that I don't feel is a duplicate. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/138774/…
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Jul 5, 2012 at 14:57

1 Answer 1


It's harder to judge someone else's intent. The edit reasons are usually useless, and when edits get more than a few basic spelling/ grammar corrections, it's harder to judge what the intention of the edit was. Requiring more than 1 edit vote makes accidental approvals/ rejections because of this less likely.

Additionally, people often plough the edit queue, where they vote on edits one after the other, without spending as much time reviewing an edit as they probably should; again, this can cause edits to be accidentally approved/ rejected, and an additional pair of eyes prevents this.

  • Haven't read the dupe yet but is there no way to tell the difference between an edit approved while plowing through the queue vs. reviewing an edit from the direct link while actually viewing a question? Perhaps there is a feature request buried in here somewhere. It seems silly to me that if I get there first I can edit the question unchecked but if a 150-rep user beats me to it I can't approve it.
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Jul 5, 2012 at 14:37
  • If there isn't at the moment, it'll be easy for the SE devs to add a parameter to be able to differentiate.
    – Matt
    Jul 5, 2012 at 15:04
  • Thanks for your insightful answer. It does make sense, but it looks a bit odd. In any case, looks like I hit a duplicate! At least now there's more chances people don't repeat the same question :)
    – Miquel
    Jul 5, 2012 at 15:12

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