12

I believe that having the ability to edit anything without the need for peer-review is great privilege that must not be given indiscriminately, that's why I like the 2k rep limit. That's not enough

There are many examples of 1k+ users having their edits rejected. Those users will soon be able to edit anything.

I suggest taking the suggested-edits history into account before giving the user the ability to edit without peer-review. For example, there can be a minimum number of suggested edits with a minimum percentage of accepted edits.

|improve this question|||||
  • 2
    All of those suggestions seem to have almost as many people who said "approve" as "reject". Also, some of them are minor formatting edits that are discouraged on suggested edits, but are considered more acceptable on regular edits. – cpast Mar 16 '13 at 23:47
  • 3
    @cpast, while I agree with you, I don't think that a member with 2k rep, 100 rejected edits and 5 approved should be given the ability to edit everything. – Adi Mar 16 '13 at 23:51
7

That's not enough.

Why isn't it? Do you have evidence that there are a plethora of users who tip over the threshold and begin making a bunch of bad edits that need to be rolled back? Even then, the proper action is to roll them back and notify them of their mistakes. That's why those features exist. If their behavior gets extraordinarily bad, then flag for a moderator to take action.

There are many examples of 1k+ users having their edits rejected.

Those aren't really "good" examples. Suggested edits tend to be held to higher standards than regular edits, requiring approval from multiple other users. They even have a minimum character limit that doesn't exist for users with full editing privileges. In cases of edits being rejected as too minor, those edits aren't necessarily bad but just don't address everything in the post, and they certainly shouldn't be held against the user in question.

I suggest taking the suggested-edits history into account before giving the user the ability to edit without peer-review.

A reject history is not necessarily a bad thing. Hopefully, through the rejections, the user has learned from their mistakes and improved the quality of edits that they're making. Users who get too many rejects get banned for a while which is a big indicator that their actions require improvement.

For those complaining that they never see them, that's a flaw of the system. I don't see how making the privilege more complicated with something like this is a "solution" to not giving users proper feedback on their rejections.

There can be a minimum number of suggested edits with a minimum percentage of accepted edits.

This completely ignores users who just plain don't participate in the suggested edits system as frequently as others. Just because they've only made a few edits since they joined doesn't mean they're not qualified to make more edits. You also don't account for the many, many users who reached 2,000 reputation before the suggested edits system was even put into effect and wouldn't have much of a history at all (aside from tag wiki edits).

Sorry, but I don't find a user's suggested edit history to be a good indication of their editing abilities, nor have I seen any evidence that the way things currently work is causing any noticeable harm. There are probably just as many users out there that would qualify under these terms making bad edits to posts that need rolled back. What do you propose we do to stop them?

|improve this answer|||||
  • 2
    Excuse my tone, but have you read my question? Here, I'll quote the part you missed for you. "For example, there can be a minimum number of suggested edits with a minimum percentage of accepted edits." – Adi Mar 16 '13 at 23:58
  • @Adnan: Ignoring users is not a solution. All it does is apply rules unfairly to a percentage of users. I've seen no indication that editing privileges at 2k is detrimental to anything. – animuson♦ Mar 16 '13 at 23:59
  • 2
    I don't see how that addresses my question. The whole point of your answer is that depending on the reject history is bad, while my suggestion is more biased towards the accepted edits. The more edits you have and the more accepted, the more you learn. Having rejected edits in your history is okay, but having 90% of your edits rejected shouldn't be. – Adi Mar 17 '13 at 0:02
  • 5
    “Hopefully, through the rejections, the user has learned from their mistakes”: that's in this fictional world where users are notified of their rejected edits, instead of the real world where they never find out about them? “Suggested edits are also held to higher standards.” No, they shouldn't be. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Mar 17 '13 at 0:09
  • 4
    Hopefully, through the rejections, the user has learned from their mistakes in theory, yes...but much like declined flags, there's no easily obtainable feedback on rejected edits. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of users don't actually notice when their edits are rejected, and thus are unable to learn from it at all. – Ben Brocka Mar 17 '13 at 1:20
  • 1
    " Just because they've only made a few edits since they joined doesn't mean they're not qualified to make more edits". Again, you're missing the point, I'm not saying that once they reach 2k they should be prevented from editing, they can continue suggesting edits until they reach this criteria. – Adi Mar 17 '13 at 7:56
  • @Adnan: And I'm saying they shouldn't have to. – animuson♦ Mar 17 '13 at 15:37
2
+25

There are many examples of 1k+ users having their edits rejected. Those users will soon be able to edit anything.

All of those edits have something in common: they were rejected for being "too minor."

So how much you support this depends on how much you believe that small fix edits are a bad thing. It makes sense that you shouldn't get 2 rep for fixing a typo. We don't want people farming 1k of rep just by making minor typo fixes.

But as far as I'm concerned, if you have 2k rep, you should be able to fix typos to your heart's content. I don't believe that people should have to fix everything in a post, or even most things, just to fix something. If I only want to take 5 seconds to correct a typo, I should be able to do so. I earned that right by participating in SO, by gaining 2k rep.

My counter-question is why shouldn't these people be allowed to improve posts? It'd be one thing if you were talking about people who are doing bad things to posts. But these are improving the post. Not as much as some might like, but they're making the questions or answers better.

|improve this answer|||||
2

I'm not satisfied with any of the answers.

As someone with nearly 3000 reviews, I feel comfortable saying that I have a general idea of how the review system is working. Allowing people with really bad suggested edits history to edit and, worse, approve others' edits isn't doing the community any good.

I feel slightly saddened that someone would say "My counter-question is why shouldn't these people be allowed to improve posts?" as if I'm even remotely suggesting that. This takes me back to when I suggested the No Action Needed button. The instant refusal of an idea isn't something to be praised, so I won't be accepting any of the answers.

I realize I made a mistake by posting those examples as they don't really support my idea very well. Just 5 minutes ago I rejected this suggested edit, it was approved by a 4k and an 11k.

I agree that users shouldn't be judged for a couple of rejected edits, but a user with a history of way more bad edits than good ones shouldn't be allowed to make edits and approve others' edits.

|improve this answer|||||
  • "it was approved by a 4k and an 11k." But in the end, it was rejected. So you haven't really demonstrated a problem yet. You also haven't shown that these 4k and 11k approvers would themselves make such an edit. You're saying that these people shouldn't have the right to edit, not merely to approve the edits of others. – Nicol Bolas Mar 26 '13 at 15:07
  • "The instant refusal of an idea isn't something to be praised, so I won't be accepting any of the answers." The instant refusal of a poorly supported, poorly founded, and poorly reasoned idea is perfectly valid. You yourself stated that your evidence didn't warrant your suggestion, so I fail to see why you should be bent out of shape when others agree with your own assessment. The difference between the NAN button rejection is that that proposal was well-reasoned with clear, legitimate evidence behind it. – Nicol Bolas Mar 26 '13 at 15:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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