This question already has an answer here:

I have just seen an approval for a Suggested Edit that takes the cake, and makes me wonder exactly how much attention some people are paying to what they do.

In this edit suggestion the editor changed the word auction to action. As far as I can see this edit was incorrect, however by the time I rejected it and typed an explanatory rejection message it had been approved.

So we have at least two people who don't pay attention to what they are approving. What can we do to stop this sort of thing happening? Note that this is not the most egregious example I've seen, but enough is enough - crap edit approvals don't make the site a better place (I've rolled back this edit).

marked as duplicate by Shadow The Curly Braced Wizard discussion Jun 26 '16 at 21:24

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 3
    This applies to all the review queues. I saw needless self-promotion (10k+ on SO only) upvoted in the late answer queue today, for example. Upvoted twice. – Martijn Pieters Oct 10 '12 at 11:32
  • 4
    They are all going for gold with the least amount of work... – Toon Krijthe Oct 10 '12 at 11:38
  • @MartijnPieters I agree. The question is: has the review process been made too easy? Is it just a new set of badges that people can game? Should the rep level required for reviewing be raised? (Note raising the rep level won't necessarily fix the problem, it just means less people to do bad reviews). – slugster Oct 10 '12 at 11:39
  • This certainly is a dupe (got to find it) , but yeah, terribly annoying and one of the reasons why I hardly spend time reviewing any more. – Bart Oct 10 '12 at 11:39
  • 3
  • Thanks @ЯegDwight ;) – Bart Oct 10 '12 at 11:43
  • @ЯegDwight Thanks - yours didn't come up in the existing questions list when I was typing it up. I've finished off the process of closing as a dupe, yours already covers this ground (although I think you could retag it). – slugster Oct 10 '12 at 11:49