This question already has an answer here:

When an edit is suggested to one of your posts you get a notification asking you to review it which gives you the option to reject the review. The problem is that many suggested edits get approved extremely quickly so that by the time you get to review the edit it has already been approved. Of course you can still roll it back, but that doesn't revoke the +2 rep that the user gained.

I'm aware of the feature request posted by BoltClock

Reject an already-approved suggested edit when rolling it back

But my feature request is specific to the case where you are rolling back an edit to your own post, in this case the concerns about revenge rollbacks etc. obviously do not apply.

As an example I was recently received a notification:

An edit was suggested to your post Intellisense in App_Code in VS2010, please review it.

In this case someone noticed that a link I posted in my anwser was broken (or moved behind registration wall), and just replaced it with another link (not totally random, but also not correct either). Besides the standard problem with robo-approvers, to a causal reviewer it is hard to notice that it wasn't a valid link, which is an additional reason why I think that the authors rollback should act as a final veto for the review.


As I mentioned earlier I am aware of BoltClock's feature request, however while implementing that feature would make this one unnecessary, so long as it hasn't been implemented this request is not a duplicate.

marked as duplicate by Manishearth, Bo Persson, ChrisF May 27 '13 at 20:04

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
    So if somebody else rolls back the edit, the user who suggested it will keep the +2 rep... how is that desirable? – BoltClock's a Unicorn Dec 14 '12 at 15:29
  • 1
    Personally I think that in that case they also should lose the +2 rep, as you suggested in your post. What I'm saying is that at a at least when the author of the post rolls back the post the user should lose the +2 rep. – Jack Dec 14 '12 at 15:33
  • @BoltClock'saUnicorn Also sorry for getting your username wrong, when I typed it in I had in mind to go back and double check the spelling.. – Jack Dec 14 '12 at 15:34
  • 3
    Not all cases where the OP rolls back are cases where the edit was inappropriate. Some OPs just don't like having their posts edits and roll back all edits on them, for example. – Servy Dec 14 '12 at 15:34
  • Ah, I get your intentions now. My first comment still stands though. And no worries :) – BoltClock's a Unicorn Dec 14 '12 at 15:35
  • @Jack Your request is subsumed under BoltClock's feature request. If the +2 rep is lost under all rollbacks, this will also apply to rollbacks by the author. Unless of course you disagree that the +2 reward should be lost in the event of rollbacks by someone else, but this doesn't seem to be the case. – Asad Saeeduddin Dec 14 '12 at 15:37
  • @Servy that's true, but I would say that more often the edit is invalid,and more so when the OP has already some amount of rep and isn't a new user. – Jack Dec 14 '12 at 16:05
  • @Asad I agree that it would be subsumed under BoltClock's feature request, except that his request wasn't implemented (at least not yet) and I think that at least this one can be (but I would prefer his). – Jack Dec 14 '12 at 16:07
  • 1
    @Manishearth This isn't a duplicate, it is a subset, but not a duplicate (that is if that would have been implemented then this request would be irrelevant, but it hasn't so it is relevant). If you read my post you would notice that I linked and mentioned that post. – Jack Dec 14 '12 at 16:36
  • @Jack: K, sorry about that... IF it gets closed, let me know and I'll cast a reopen vote. – Manishearth Dec 14 '12 at 16:39
  • @Servy: That really should be an answer, and the only reason really needed to say "no, this is a bad idea." New users, especially, do that all the time, simply because they don't understand how our site works. – animuson Dec 14 '12 at 18:46
  • Great, now we need to feature-request the implementation of a "automatically close as dupe of ... when it's status-completed" – Tobias Kienzler Aug 21 '13 at 13:47
  • @TobiasKienzler Where do you that it was status completed? Or are you saying if that feature request is completed? – Jack Aug 21 '13 at 14:45
  • @Jack I mean as your edit suggests, as long as the other request is not implemented, yours being a subset and not a true duplicate should indeed be reopened, but should the other one ever be implemented, yours should automatically be closed again instead of requiring users to re-intervene... – Tobias Kienzler Aug 21 '13 at 14:47