We all know of the various problems afflicting the quality of the Suggested Edit review queue.

I think the quality of the queue results could be improved if people like myself had a higher daily limit for reviews. I've got a shiny gold badge from my work in that queue, I've got over 20K rep so I'm considered to be a trusted user, yet I can still only review 20 edits per day.

I agree that we still need a limit, after all trusted members could go rogue. But any action I take in the queue (apart from edits I decide to improve) are still part of the community effort, it still takes other members to agree with me for an edit to be approved. It seems counter-intuitive that I can make an arbitrary number of regular edits (no limits that I'm aware of) and I can edit wiki entries with no oversight, but I'm still limited to 20 suggested edit reviews. Why can't this be 40 or 50 - there is enough volume in that queue to accomodate it, I don't think people missing out will be much of a problem.

Surely this could be an easy change to implement, and should fairly quickly help improve the quality of the reviews?

Note that this is not a duplicate of Increased Daily Limits With Increased Reputation but does expand on Remove 20 reviews per day for people who gained gold badge for that review type. While there are a number of questions relating to raising various action/voting thresholds, due to the problems on the suggested edit review queue this proposal may warrant consideration that the others don't.


I just checked and the suggested edits queue on Stack Overflow is at 7 posts. With the new review system there doesn't seem to be a large backlog of edits to review, so there is no actual need to increase the number of reviews a single user can do.

Limiting the number of reviews also ensures that edits are reviewed by a variety of users, and not always by the same ones. This restriction limits the harm a single bad reviewer can have.

I also don't see why 20k+ users should be exempt for the rules, I generally consider this reputation threshold to be rather meaningless. I don't see how 20k+ users are so much less likely to make bad reviews than 10k users or even 3k users. The lower reputation threshold still carry some meaning, as they ensure a minimum amount of experience with the SE system. But higher reputations just tell you how often a user uses the site and how old his account is.

  • It's not the volume on the queue that I'm driving at, it's the volume of bad suggestions that get through. A limit of 20 reviews means I have a quite limited interaction with that queue per day - increasing this limit could help stem the bad suggestions that get approved from the robo-reviewers. – slugster Feb 1 '13 at 9:41
  • 2
    @slugster One good user taking more responsibility will not solve that problem. We need to better educate the poor reviewers (or more efficiently detect and stop them). – Bart Feb 1 '13 at 9:43

How are you going to decide who to trust? High reputation does not correlate with good reviewing. Despite its name the “trusted user” privilege grade does not mean that the user can be trusted not to be a robo-approver.

I'm also not too keen on giving more work to people just because they've shown to do it well.

On the other hand, I would like to see one-click reject as a privilege. This one could be a 20k privilege, though I'd prefer it to also be tied to having made a sufficient number of reviews. That would make the life of conscientious reviewers easier, this way we wouldn't forever be clicking “Improve” then being told that we can't submit our edit because the crappy suggestion was approved in the meantime.

  • Love the one-click reject! Maybe tie it to flag weight or helpful flags or number of review audits passed consecutively (no fails in between) or something specific to a demonstrated judgement capability rather than purely rep? – Kate Gregory Feb 1 '13 at 14:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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