4

As I understand it, approval of edits now takes more than one reviewer.

I am a high rep user on http://stats.stackexchange.com and thus, I often edit questions to improve them. Today I came across a question that needed editing. One low rep user had already proposed some edits. I approved these edits. But because I was the first reviewer, I could not then build on those edits to really polish the question. It seems that I have to wait for another reviewer to come along and approve the edits. This seems pointless.

Given that I am a high rep user I can in theory make any edits to the question without approval. Thus, I could choose to incorporate the proposed edits or not. Of course, general standards suggest that I should incorporate any reasonable edits already made. And I would typically do that. The important point however is that high rep users who have editing privileges should be able to edit a question immediately even if there are pending edits.

My feature request

High rep users should be able to edit a question that is under editing review and should be given the choice when pressing edit of

  1. approving the edit under review immediately or
  2. disapproving the edit under review.

(UPDATE) Alternatively a high rep user should be able to improve an edit after they have pressed "approve" and prior to the edit receiving sufficient approvals to be published.

Are there any reasons why this would not be a good idea? What do others think?

8
  • Pointless? Why do you think this is pointless? You mention that it only used to take one user to approve an edit. Since it now takes two (or on Stack Overflow three), don't you think that's because issues have arisen with just one reviewer?
    – ɥʇǝS
    May 11 '13 at 3:18
  • I also don't understand what exactly your asking for. Do you want to be able to approve edits on your own or do you want to be able to edit a question even though there is already an edit pending?
    – ɥʇǝS
    May 11 '13 at 3:19
  • Sorry @Seth I didn't mean to be disrespectful. I'm talking only about people who are about to edit a question and have the approval to edit questions without approval. If they are going to edit a question, then it wouldn't matter whether the original edit was approved or not, because they can do what they want. Thus, the general approval process could take multiple approvals, but when the user actually wants to make an edit, it could be a single process. May 11 '13 at 3:24
  • 1
    You can edit and approve, or edit and reject at the same time, single-handedly.
    – nhahtdh
    May 11 '13 at 3:24
  • 1
    @nhahtdh When I click "edit(1)" I see the message "You have already reviewed this item. It needs more reviews from other users to be completed. Jeromy Anglim reviewed this 30 mins ago: Approve". So I can't review an edit in the same process, unless there is problem due to the fact that I used the review pane first. May 11 '13 at 3:28
  • 1
    @JeromyAnglim: You use Improve button as Shog has pointed out. There is an option for you to reject or accept in there. I don't recommend you to do this unless you really want to improve the post.
    – nhahtdh
    May 11 '13 at 3:29
  • @nhahtdh okay. But now that I have approved, I can no longer edit or improve. I guess the issue is that I didn't realise the process that is now required. I thought the steps were: (a) approve then edit, but I should have clicked "improve" originally. I think a better process then would be to enable improvement even after approval. May 11 '13 at 3:33
  • One thing you need to keep in mind though is that it wouldn't be fair if high rep users can edit questions even if there are pending edits since that would nullify any changes they where trying to make.
    – ɥʇǝS
    May 11 '13 at 15:06
10

You can already do this:

The Improve button allows approvers to apply changes to the edited version of the text, so they can correct typos introduced by the original editor or to make further changes. The revised text is published when the improver saves their changes.

When improving an edit, the reviewer also has the option of marking the suggested edit as helpful or not helpful, which alters the outcome of the edit they make.

Of course, you do have to realize that you want to edit the post before approving the suggested edit, since otherwise you'll have to wait for the second approval.

1
  • 2
    That clarifies it. I imagine now that I know this, I'll be more careful with approving next time. However, an alternative option would be to enable the option to improve even after approval has been given. Or just allow editing at all times. I think that would be better. May 11 '13 at 3:36

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