20

It's bad enough when somebody tries to "fix" the code in an answer, or worse, an accepted answer. But, is there any doubt that this suggested edit is completely improper? The user couldn't post a comment, so they appended it with a ranting rebuttal...

https://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/1507293

Yet a member with enough rep to know better, apparently doesn't know any better at all.

Should the amount of rep required to review answer edits be increased to the 5K or 7.5K level? This is half-joking, but perhaps make people pass a quiz before being allowed to review edit suggestions. Edit: Or users with enormously large approve/reject ratios should be reviewed and have their privileges suspended.

Improve this question
36
  • 2
    And this one too (but this one was a 10k user). – animuson♦ Feb 12 '13 at 19:54
  • 3
    Nah, suggested-edit-approval voting. Get enough downvotes in a certain timeframe and you get banned; forever. – ben is uǝq backwards Feb 12 '13 at 19:56
  • 4
    Note how much rep the user has in animuson's example. Rep simply isn't a good enough indicator of the quality of the reviewer, increasing it might help a bit, but not a lot. – Servy Feb 12 '13 at 19:57
  • 7
    @Sparky As a general rule I can't spend more than 5 minutes in the /review system without getting discouraged in some way, shape, or form. – Servy Feb 12 '13 at 20:00
  • 3
    If you notice the lone approver has reviewed 100 edits and only 2 rejects. And I thought my 2-to-1 accept to reject ratio was high. – psubsee2003 Feb 12 '13 at 20:00
  • 7
    I suspect AppDeveloper didn't even it read it – Some Helpful Commenter Feb 12 '13 at 20:04
  • 2
    Oooh, ooh, is this finally the thread where we post bad edits we've been collecting to shame the approvers? <Gets out my file...> – LittleBobbyTables - Au Revoir Feb 12 '13 at 20:06
  • 23
    I'd also be in favor of bringing back the Strunk & White badge requirement for reviewing suggested edits. I mean, if the user has only made 5 edits themselves, they certainly don't seem very qualified to be voting on other edits. – animuson♦ Feb 12 '13 at 20:08
  • 9
    That user has been in my hit list for a good couple of weeks. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Feb 12 '13 at 20:11
  • 2
    I've seen this kind of "editing in a lengthy response" behavior before, always by an anonymous users, and it makes me think that it should be impossible for anonymous users to edit. – David Robinson Feb 12 '13 at 20:18
  • 11
    I don't know that we need to call out every instance of this. The new suggested edit audit mechanism is rapidly taking care of the worst offenders, and if people are rubber-stamping edits like this they soon will be banned from the queue. I've been watching this and it really does seem to be making a difference. – Brad Larson Feb 12 '13 at 20:19
  • 2
    @DavidRobinson I've seen non-anon users doing the same thing, but I do agree that I've seen very, very few anon edits worthy of approval, so I question the need for that feature to be there. – Servy Feb 12 '13 at 20:27
  • 6
    @BradLarson: our thirst for the blood of the offenders will not be quenched until their usercards scroll by on some sort of audit-ban mugshots page. Only then will we feel better about what the edit queue has become.... – user7116 Feb 12 '13 at 20:31
  • 4
    We will not rest until a Registered audit offender badge is placed underneath those users' Gravatars! Seriously though, this is terrible and totally worthwhile calling out when it happens IMO. Could a second layer of audits not help here? It would at least reduce the probability of a bad audit coming through massively. – Pekka Feb 12 '13 at 20:44
  • 8
    I saw someone suggesting edit to tag wiki where he asked a question. IT GOT APPROVED. Here it is. Think that's an unbreakable record and the best part is that we have no roll back for tag wiki. – Shadow The Vaccinated Wizard Feb 12 '13 at 21:15