There's no way to ask about this without calling out the person, so I'll get right to it: this guy has had a flurry of trivial code formatting edits over the past few days, in all cases I've seen so far without fixing anything else in the post, and many of his edits are getting approved (well, 19 out of 28 have been rejected, so good job reviewers).

In one scenario, a trivial edit was approved after the post had been deleted. I realize that the suggested edit was placed into the review queue before the answer was deleted, but it still ends up looking weird. For non-10k-ers:

enter image description here

My points of discussion:

  1. Should a suggested edit to a deleted post remain in the queue after the post has been deleted (especially if deleted by the owner)? If the owner has deleted the post, surely there is no reason to carry forth any edits suggested by others. The delete may be permanent or the user may be totally revamping their answer, and by definition the editor can no longer see the post they just edited anyway.

  2. Should the edited timestamp reflect the time the suggested edit was submitted, rather than when it was approved? That would prevent cases like this from "looking weird."

  3. A 19/28 reject rate is good, but for these particular types of edits, not good enough IMHO. If he was correcting code, it'd be one thing, but he's just adding or removing white space. How are these other edits getting through? At what point does he get blocked from suggesting edits? Why hasn't this already happened?

  • 6
    Unfortunately, I think the robo-reviewers have been in full effect with his edits. IMO the sql formatting that he is suggesting is awful. Using a t-sql formatter to update code might make things better in some cases but adding whitespace and capitalizing keywords are trivial edits that should be rejected. – Taryn Sep 5 '13 at 13:54
  • @bluefeet Sometimes I almost wish suggested edits just did not exist. Almost... – Andrew Barber Sep 5 '13 at 13:55
  • @AndrewBarber The problem there is you'd still see a ton of invalid non-suggested edits then, as people wouldn't learn what kinds of edits are appropriate through the suggested edit system. – Servy Sep 5 '13 at 14:57
  • @bluefeet I completely agree. If someone is taking code that is already formated and just running it through redgate auto format. That is a completly unacceptable edit. – Zane Sep 5 '13 at 14:58
  • @bluefeet: The weird thing is that looking through the reviewer stats for some of these, the people voting Approve have about the same approve:reject vote ratios as the ones voting Reject, so they're clearly not just approving everything; something about these edits is saying "this reformatting isn't actually too minor" to them. – Wooble Sep 5 '13 at 15:12
  • @Wooble well maybe they auto-approve any edits that only touch code, and reject edits that touch other parts of the posts. Unless you look closer you can't be sure one way or the other. – Aaron Bertrand Sep 5 '13 at 15:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .