Finding myself conserving suggested edit votes to reject edits, would it make sense to have a higher reject quota than approve quota? Or, balance quotas such as 10-approve and 10-reject.

Or, would that make those who blindly blanket serial approve simply blindly reject?


Pro community moderation, it seems there is currently an epidemic of senseless edit approvals.

  • Maybe an algorithm that find the user that are do not agree with the rest (so are probably like your red dummy). Eg, let say on 10 users, 2 of them agree with the rest only on 10%, so maybe they act randomly. The rest 8 agree together 80%+. – Aristos Oct 24 '12 at 5:57
  • I think it may really just come down to increasing the amount of reviews necessary before an edit is approved. I feel this will always be a problem, though, to some extent. – Adam Eberlin Oct 24 '12 at 6:06
  • 1
    Many people (maybe even most) prefer to skip suggested edit they're not sure about. With your suggestion, they will be heavily limited. What you consider "blind approvals" might be just users who don't have time or will to decide when it's not an obvious (for them at least) proper edit. I share your opinion though and even went as far as suggesting to block such users however since then learned to know the system little better. – Shadow9 Oct 24 '12 at 7:31
  • @ShaWizDowArd Initially I would skip rather than reject when reviewing. Over time, I realized rejecting edits was equally important. I'm not sure if encouraging balancing votes imposes anything limited beyond current caps. Users who are unsure or don't have time should continue to skip it. Per your post regarding blocking users, I also like ideas involving weights. – Jason Sturges Oct 24 '12 at 7:47
  • 1
    @Jason I do agree with your opinions, but adding extra votes would be too great a risk of misusing those votes by badge hunters. – Shadow9 Oct 24 '12 at 7:49

While I'm fond of balancing queues (equal caps per review action types such as approve / reject votes) and reviewer weights / score, I like Stack Overflow's approach of gotcha's:

You caught me.

We throw a few known cases into the queue* as "gotchas" to keep people from just nailing "Looks Good" or "Close" or whatever without reading the questions.

For now we're pulling from really obvious sources: spam, and uncontested high quality posts.

This instills confidence that Stack Overflow is handling review issues accordingly.


I write it with more details as an idea.

Let say that each user is get a hidden score when they accept or reject an edit.

There let say that we give this score.

A, B -> if they agree they get both +1
A, C -> if they not agree they get both -1

On one edit if we have A,C,D the A disagree with C and D, so A gets -1, C D, did not get anything as score.

Remember we try to find the one that are act randomly, not get the high score.

If A, act randomly is probably gets a lot of -1 on some tags, and then you can calculate the percentage of -1, for example on 100 edits, if 50% or more are disagree with others (-1) then is probably act randomly - or in general is not in the same line with the community.

Now maybe A, did not know anything about that tag and is only make mistakes about that tag. I suggest to be eliminating per Tag. Eg, I know nothing about java and if I accept or not on java tag maybe my edits on that Tag are wrong, but not on asp.net that I know more.

  • I like your core point of weights. – Jason Sturges Oct 24 '12 at 6:23
  • Well, that's why they introduced the review filter, so that you don't have to review posts you are not well versed in their topics. What do you suggest to do about users who get a lot of disagreements? – Madara's Ghost Oct 29 '12 at 10:04
  • @MadaraUchiha I do not know what to suggest at this point, and with out data. This can be an experimental and the results must be analyse to see if they actually help or not. – Aristos Oct 29 '12 at 10:06

The issue is that most edits are not too bad. Also I may reject one for doing too little, or being pointless and someone else will just let it pass.

So it could be said we are trying to find the haystack without a needle, when looking for users that don’t reject enough. That’s are hard problem to do with stats.

You must log in to answer this question.

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