From what I understand, and have observed, a single person clicking Looks Good in the Low Quality review queue is enough to take it out of the queue.

The Edit button implicitly does the same thing, but this isn't stated anywhere. For instance, this answer, which is:

thanks for the help but i was wondering what is sudo?

It's clearly a non-answer but was edited to be:

Thanks for the help but I was wondering what is sudo?

By improving the quality of the capitalisation the editor has effectively stopped the answer from being deleted.

It's not at all obvious that editing the post will do this and it means that non-answers do not get deleted when they should be. It requires someone to realise that a post, which they recommended the deletion of, has not actually been deleted and to then flag it for moderator attention.

An Edit should be considered a null instead of a Looks Good as it means well-meaning editors stop the system from working.

  • 4
    I think the Edit button should put the post back into the queue and reset its statistics for further reviewing.
    – nhahtdh
    Dec 23 '12 at 11:35
  • 6
    The subtle, slightly muffled thud noises you hear off in the distance are the sounds of my head repeatedly striking my desk.
    – Tim Post
    Dec 23 '12 at 11:57
  • Your head must be quite bruised by now @Tiny :-). I'm not a big fan of what I describe in my first sentence so I've created a feature-request to change that to </shameless plug> Dec 23 '12 at 12:01
  • From what I understand, and have observed, a single person clicking Looks Good in the Low Quality review queue is enough to take it out of the queue. That's not true. It takes several (3 I think, if memory serves).
    – Servy
    Jan 4 '13 at 16:53
  • I don't have absolute proof @servy but I can easily provide empirical evidence stackoverflow.com/review/low-quality-posts/1278864, stackoverflow.com/review/low-quality-posts/1278800, stackoverflow.com/review/low-quality-posts/1278846 (the second link is particularly indicative) Jan 4 '13 at 16:56
  • @benisuǝqbackwards Hmm, they must have changed it at some point since I was using the queue more regularly.
    – Servy
    Jan 4 '13 at 17:00
  • 1
    Granted people can spend their own time doing whatever they like, but choosing "edit" for a non-answer seems like the wrong choice. What's the point if slapping a coat of paint on something that's about to be thrown in the garbage? Jan 4 '13 at 18:06
  • 2
    Or, in other words, I think the software is behaving in the best way possible for this workflow. If you're clicking "edit" on soon-to-be-deleted posts, you're doing it wrong. Jan 4 '13 at 18:10
  • 2
    As I state below I don't dispute that @jadarnel27, however people are doing it wrong. Why not make it more difficult for them to do so? Jan 4 '13 at 18:33

Under the instructions for what to do in the low quality review queue it says

Edit if you can fix all the problems with this answer

I think that is fairly obvious that it is the same as saying it *"looks good", after all If you have fixed everything wrong with the post, then why would you still consider it low quality?

Perhaps the "all" in the instructions can be more emphasized to better make this point (I added the bold in the quote above).

  • 1
    It appears as though that's not enough, as evidenced above. I'd be more in favour of removing edit and having the normal edit link under the question instead, as with first posts etc so that someone can edit and then say looks good or delete etc. It makes the UI more consistent with the rest of the queues and less open to confusion. Jan 4 '13 at 16:07
  • 2
    @benisuǝqbackwards You shouldn't be making an edit if you still feel the post should be deleted after being edited. This is a single bad edit, but the workflow in the general case is fine, so long as this remains an edge case and not a regular problem.
    – Servy
    Jan 4 '13 at 16:52
  • 1
    I'm not disputing that @Servy; I'm saying that it happens and that the workflow can be easily improved to stop it from happening. I don't know how many times it happens but if it can be easily stopped why not do so? Jan 4 '13 at 16:55
  • @benisuǝqbackwards Because the vast majority of the time when a post is edited it really doesn't need any more attention, so that's what the workflow optimizes for.
    – Servy
    Jan 4 '13 at 16:58
  • 1
    instruction wording would better be changed to "Edit if you can make it look good"
    – gnat
    Jan 4 '13 at 17:58
  • 4
    Maybe that comment explains the entire problem @gnat. There's an emphasis on things looking good, when they actually need to be good. Jan 5 '13 at 10:33

You should use the workflow I laid out in Does using Edit in the Close Review queue count as a Do Not Close vote? for the close-queue equivalent:

  • click the question itself to go to the question
  • edit it as usual
  • return to the page you were on and vote for deletion


  • vote for deletion
  • use the review history to find a link to the question
  • edit it (this will not count as "please don't delete")

The "it sucks, but should at least get edited" workflow is considered an edge case compared to "There, I fixed it."

  • If a post ought to be deleted why would you waste your time editing it?
    – Servy
    Jan 4 '13 at 17:40
  • 2
    I can't answer for the delete case (I suspect it's something like "in case the delete process doesn't work, at least what gets through won't be quite so awful") but for the close-as-dupe case it's a very common wish, since all non-deleted posts stand as examples for others. Jan 4 '13 at 17:42
  • But this isn't realted to closing duplicates. That's the point; closing questions is a completely different situation from the Low quality questions queue. Closes questions are still publicly visible, so edits to them will actually be read by people, but for a deleted question it just won't be seen, so edits are pointless.
    – Servy
    Jan 4 '13 at 17:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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