7

I have noticed lately since I have been reviewing more regularly on Stackoverflow, that there are a lot of people who don't properly review posts. A lot of people simply click "Approve" just to move along when the edit may be false.

Recently, I answered a question which was edited by an anonymous user (which I think should not be allowed). He made an addition and basically said my answer was crap. I don't mind if someone thinks my answer isn't correct or could be improved, but I don't see how anonymous user can even be allowed to edit, never mind write something like that. I looked at the review stats and was glad to find the majority of people declined it, however 1 users for some odd reason approved it.

So I have 2 suggestions:

  1. Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit a post.
  2. Either increase the rep needed to review suggested edits or set a small time limit before any actions can be take on the edit, so people actually read the changes that have been made, rather than taking the first action that they see.

Update:

If removing anonymous edits is a bit too much, then why not add recaptcha to them? It might prevent some of the spam edits.

marked as duplicate by ChrisF, Bo Persson, Toon Krijthe, michaelb958, Martijn Pieters Feb 28 '14 at 0:32

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.

Browse other questions tagged .