2

This question already has an answer here:

So, I just had these two edit reviews happen to me:

The first one was obviously correctly rejected, so the editor apparently attempted to edit it again just two minutes later, with pretty much the same content (except differnt formatting).

Now for some reason I can’t understand, this actually went through the review process. Although there were two rejects and two approves, the third approve actually completed the review and published the edit.

Now it’s already hard for me to grasp why one would accept that edit. But I somewhat see the missing context at fault here. Reviewers don’t see the question, the comments, or even who asked the question (in this case, I think it would be a lot easier to see that it’s an invalid edit if it was clear, that the editor was actually the one asking the original question).

But what puzzles me the most is that after the edit was uniformly rejected at first, another nearly identical edit was possible just two minutes later. I would like to see some threshold here that prevents rejected editors from trying again until they find reviewers who incorrectly let it through. Or at least some warning (especially for the one asking the question) that editing an answer like that might not be what they should do in this case.

What do you think?

marked as duplicate by Shadow The Princess Wizard, Johnny Bones, Hugo Dozois, ale, Uphill Luge Dec 26 '13 at 23:03

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • From time to time, I see those invalid edits accepted, and just rollback them. In a very rare situation (in fact, can't recall with confidence did I ever faced one :) ) when this activity is too persistent I would flag the question for mod attention, and leave rest to moderators. – alko Dec 26 '13 at 19:18
  • 4
    I think there's a scenario where someone looks at the rejection reason (eg too minor), still feels the post needs improving, and tries again. And I think we should permit that. – Kate Gregory Dec 26 '13 at 19:31
  • Wow one of the reviewers who approved that 200% wrong edit also rejected totally valid edit. That's one BAD reviewer. – Shadow The Princess Wizard Dec 26 '13 at 20:00
  • @alko Yeah, I just rolled it back as well; and I’m not looking for something to punish anyone (neither the editor—in this case OP who was looking for a way to add more information—nor the reviewers who simply didn’t see the whole situation). I just want to make this a bit more unlikely, either by preventing the rejected editor from trying again immediately, or by giving reviewers more context so they can more correctly decline the edit. – poke Dec 26 '13 at 23:10
  • @KateGregory Absolutely true, but does one really see the reject reason? And when it’s OP editing an answer, shouldn’t there be some additional message for new users that tells them, that editing an answer to your own question is unlikely the place where to add more information? – poke Dec 26 '13 at 23:11
5

Every time you add a new feature that blocks a user from doing something, the system becomes more complicated, and more difficult to use.

I know that you might think that such a feature wouldn't make the system that much harder to use, but little things like this do add up if you do it too much.

Maybe it's because I'm not that observant, but I personally haven't noticed too many people abusing the edit system in the way that you're describing. Sure, it might happen from time to time, but that's nothing that you can't undo. If the user is in an edit war, you can flag a moderator.

I don't think that the benefits of adding this feature are worth the costs.

  • You are definitely right, and I wasn’t really thinking of locking out anyone. Instead, maybe we should look at giving more context to reviews (e.g. highlighting the user name of OP) so that review mistakes get more unlikely. – poke Dec 26 '13 at 23:05

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