I just ran across a suggested edit that was rejected for being an "invalid edit" and a "radical change" because it appeared that the editor had attempted to add an <input> tag in the question. In reality, the original poster had not properly included it with the code block, so it was not rendered (another problem in itself). There were 2 other reviewers who did take the time to look at it in markdown and see that the tag was there originally, however 3 did not and a perfectly valid edit was rejected. I have seen this happen other times as well.

I believe that it would be useful to include this type of edit in the review audit process. I understand that, largely, the goal of the audits is to prevent robo-reviewers, but it does seem like this, and other suggestions, would help increase the quality of the people who are actually reviewing.

  • 4
    That's because people only look at "rendered output" view... And that is sad. – Hugo Dozois Apr 24 '13 at 18:07
  • 1
    It makes me sad as well @HugoDozois. That poor user, forever scarred with a rejected edit! – jprofitt Apr 24 '13 at 18:14
  • Note that a good edit comment ("Moved input tag into code block so that it renders") explaining what was done should help. With such an edit comment, you can really blame reviewers who don't look at the markdown. – Daniel Fischer Apr 24 '13 at 19:37
  • That would certainly help, however if someone makes that comment but also did add code that wasn't in the original post, then those same people would probably accept the edit instead of rejecting it. Ultimately it should be the responsibility of the reviewer to fully evaluate the worthiness of an edit -- not the editor, who by virtue of only being able to suggest edits may or may not be providing good ones. – jprofitt Apr 24 '13 at 19:44
  • That's one of the cases when the suggestion has 50/50 to pass. Not much we can do but I agree that such audit might improve the chances over time. – Shadow The Dragon Wizard Apr 24 '13 at 20:17
  • 1
    I wouldn't say that's really a valid edit TBH. The input should really be in a separate code block. But I can say that if it had been a separate code block like it should be, it probably still would have ended with the same fate. – animuson Apr 24 '13 at 22:34

I think the suggested edit review queue should show the edit in markdown by default. This way, even when people don't bother to switch to (or don't know about) markdown diff can see the changes made to the markdown first.

You must log in to answer this question.

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