We are charged 1 point to downvote.

Why are we not charged 1 point for lousy edits?

So - This is aimed at the bad edits. That reek of point-farming or drive-by's..

There may be some collateral damage. But overall, it would help. The status-quo is that we are very forgiving... it is unlikely that good users will suffer(30 approved and 8 rejected still leaves me +46 ).

The problem is that rejected edits are unnoticed, but chipping away my rep?!? That hurts

It should reduce point-farming somewhat

This is directly motivated by today's post here:

What to do about terrible suggested edits that are approved?

Thank you

  • 1
    While I agree that something should be done to bring to users' attention that their edits are rejected, I don't think this is it. – user206222 Oct 25 '13 at 21:38
  • 2
    Why are we not charged 1 point for lousy edits? -- Because downvotes are not cast only for bad edits, that's why. You're comparing apples and oranges. The -1 charge for a downvote is a cost, not a penalty. – user102937 Oct 25 '13 at 21:38
  • 13
    Suggesters are not the problem. It's the people who approve things like this that are. – dcaswell Oct 25 '13 at 21:39
  • @dcaswell - Well yeah, but how can that be changed? I'm not sure there's room to budge on the number of suggested editors, etc – Adel Oct 25 '13 at 21:40
  • @dcaswell :(((( – Dennis Meng Oct 25 '13 at 21:41
  • 1
    You don't do it by charging rep for bad edits. That doesn't impact the reviewer at all. Are you suggesting that we should charge the reviewer -1? – user102937 Oct 25 '13 at 21:41
  • 3
    @dcaswell I don't think that's totally correct. I don't think we can disregard bad editors, though I do agree that bad reviewers are a larger and more significant problem – user206222 Oct 25 '13 at 21:42
  • @RobertHarvey - Understood , .. I was thinking that this is an easier way than trying to change reviewers. At least it may be worth experimenting with, I'd think. – Adel Oct 25 '13 at 21:42
  • 1
    @dcaswell whenever someone posts a terrible approved edit I have a horrible worry that I might be one of the approvers – Richard Tingle Oct 25 '13 at 21:45
  • 1
    I actually agree with this; right now there's nothing to discourage random spam or vandalism edits. (+1) – Doorknob Oct 25 '13 at 22:14
  • @Doorknob I see your point, but I don't think that is a big enough issue. However, I don't have any stats to support that otherwise. If it were a huge problem, I might feel differently – psubsee2003 Oct 25 '13 at 22:31
  • @psubsee2003 - Why need it be "huge" to warrant the -1 ? Random spam is quite bad! – Adel Oct 25 '13 at 22:44
  • 2
    @Adel then apply the punishment to edits rejected as spam/vandalism. A -1 for a "too minor" reject is unnecessarily punitive. – psubsee2003 Oct 25 '13 at 22:49
  • @dcaswell I can't judge if that edit is correct, but judging from your comment you think that made the question worse. Why didn't you rollback that revision then? – Sumurai8 Nov 14 '13 at 5:04

I feel your pain. I hate seeing bad suggested edits approved, but per my emphasis, the issue is the approvers, not the suggesters.

If the suggesters were the problem, the fix would be easy, but the people making the suggested edits are not the people we trust to make edits. If we trusted them to make good edits, there would be no need for suggested edits.

Personally, I believe the biggest problem with editors is not the edits, but the fact that they don't get told they might be doing something wrong. If editors are more directly informed of rejected edits and provided better feedback without forcing them to hunt for something they don't know exists, then I would agree they they need to take more responsibility. But until that happens, it is unfair to try to correct their actions via punitive measures.

What I am trying to get at is that the problem is the approvers. We trust them to be able to make quality edits without review, so we should be able to trust them to review edits and make judgements on quality.

So when bad edits get approved, the onus should be on them, not the editor.

Of course, the editor needs to be educated as to why the edit wasn't good enough, but the approvers are the ones who need to be held accountable. If you can come up with a good idea on how to hold them accountable, I think the community would listen as that has proved to be a challenge.

| improve this answer | |
  • Improvements can be made on both sides though, yes? – Adel Oct 25 '13 at 22:41
  • 1
    @Adel I think the improvements on the editor side will be better served by actually informing editors of rejects. Until that happens, it is unfair to punish them for something that they don't even know they are doing wrong. – psubsee2003 Oct 25 '13 at 22:44
  • 3
    @Adel No, actually. If you fix the reviewers then the reviewers take care of the editors. If people suggesting bad edits actaully have those bad edits rejected then they'll just be edit banned if they suggest a lot of bad edits, and bad edits won't be actually applied to posts. The problem is that the entire system is based on the fact that more than half of the reviewers are generally competent. Sadly, that is not the case, so the entire system breaks down. – Servy Oct 25 '13 at 23:20

Most of the reviewers aren't mean people (sadly). So many of them would just feel bad about causing an editor to lose 1 rep for suggesting a horrible edit, "because they were trying to help". They would be all the more inclined to approve bad edits, to prevent people from (justifiably) losing some of their Imaginary Internet Points.

Thus the action that this change would have on reviewers is to exacerbate the problem that you're trying to solve. It will result in even more approved bad edits, rather than less.

As has been said so many times, you need to hold the reviewers accountable for reviewing poorly, not the editors. There are already systems in place to handle incorrect suggested edits but that system relies on having good reviewers, which we don't have. Rather than trying to get editors to make less bad edits, you need to prevent the bad edits that will inevitably be suggested from getting approved. If they aren't approved, then editors will learn to stop suggesting them.

| improve this answer | |

This will result in less suggestions, and will have bad impact on suggesters reputation and the quality of the posts.

Beside the final (bad) outcome it might have, when someone tries to help by suggesting an edit, not only you are making him wait for a review, but also taking the risk of losing points? That doesn't sound reasonable.

That is why it's called suggestion, and it supposed to have someone who reviews them.

| improve this answer | |
  • It is primarily your point about deterring editors that I agree with. People take reputation needlessly seriously, and as a result, losing points is bound to penalize the act of reviewing, instead of bad reviews. – user206222 Oct 25 '13 at 21:56
  • @Emrakul - The fact is that 1 point is a small price, and I doubt it will prevent well-intentioned edits – Adel Oct 25 '13 at 22:00
  • 4
    @Adel One point is a small price, but if someone charged you a dollar every time you said something sarcastic, you probably wouldn't be talking much at all. Same psychological impact – user206222 Oct 25 '13 at 22:02
  • @Adel you and I see 1 rep point as a small price, but some people seem to think the lose of 2 points causes them great harm. I don't think it is the right apporach. In the end, people will think twice about editing if they are concerned there is a remote chance that they will lose rep. – psubsee2003 Oct 25 '13 at 22:27

You must log in to answer this question.

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