8

I've recently obtained the ability to review user edits on SO and I've found that there is many users that attempt to abuse the system in order to build reputation.

By that I mean doing things such as slightly rephrasing a paragraph/the title or adding minor irrelevant tags, obviously with the purpose obtaining reputation from it (from the looks of their activity history).

I find it's kind of a grey area because the edits are not usually negative. The SO guideness does say somewhere you shouldn't suggest minor edits so I'm ensure what to do about those edits. Would anyone be able to throw some light on the subject?

  • What's wrong with voting to reject the edit as "too minor"? – David Robinson Oct 13 '13 at 4:01
  • 5
    Go ahead and reject them as too minor. With enough rejects, they'll be temporary banned from making edits. That should send a signal that their edits should be better. – Mysticial Oct 13 '13 at 4:01
  • possible duplicate of Prevent Review Queue Flooding – Cole Johnson Oct 13 '13 at 4:08
  • Isn't there a reputation cap to edits ? – vinaut Oct 13 '13 at 8:43
  • @vinaut Around 1000 edits for new users. – Aza Oct 13 '13 at 16:20
7

Don't forget - some folks are just learning the ropes of editing. We're a little more stringent on what constitutes a less-than-trivial edit, so try not to be too annoyed with new users that haven't figured it out yet. It's a two step process; the first is enticing them to participate by editing, which we're doing a good job at accomplishing - the second is teaching them how to be good editors.

Users that repeatedly make extremely trivial, incorrect or nonsensical edits will be told to take a break rather quickly. If it becomes a pattern, moderators can step in (and do). Once people grasp that every suggested edit means more people spending time to review it, most will try to not let that time be wasted.

The oddball is folks that use edits to place spam, gibberish or 'lulz' and other completely irrelevant rants into posts. If you see that, flag the post immediately as 'other' and let the moderators handle it (after, of course, voting to reject the edit).

  • 6
    could we please have a "reject and flag" button for that? Currently the workflow would be reject > history.back > flag > next. – John Dvorak Oct 13 '13 at 4:18
  • 3
    @JanDvorak That's actually not a bad idea at first glance. I'm going to look into it. – Tim Post Oct 13 '13 at 4:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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