What I asked is basically for robot-approvers.

Many times, while I was reviewing, I come across scenarios where I saw a suggested edit have problems (invalid or too minor etc). When I try to reject it, system warns me, stated the edit had accepted. It takes greater effort if the post required rollback.

That is already known as robot-approvers problem

But when it comes to edits suggested by anonymous users, it is a bit different. Do we have stats showing that anonymous edits are helpful? shows data of the anonymous suggested edits.

Edit suggestions by anonymity is the best choice for people who wants to spam or vandalize SX sites. Since many StackExchange sites have a high visitor count and have higher ranks in search engine results, it is a good place to tell people about your products by spamming existing posts. Or just vandalize them for no logical reason. Because you do not risk much. There is no need to create an account and banned IP addresses can be handled easily with some programs or changing the IP.

And when such posts reviewed by robot-approvers, then results might be worse. If the post is not detected by somebody else, then it may stay in that condition for a long time.

My suggestion is, a kind of notification box can be placed above the post in review screen stating that edit is suggested by an anonymous user and reviewer must be careful for potencial spam or vandalism acts.

My aim is not flagging anonymous suggestions like second class citizens. But data in above link shows the rate of useful suggestions from anonymous users and we do have robot-approvers. At least, robot-approvers may be more careful about that suggestions or just skip it.

  • 8
    Totally pointless, robo reviewer will never look on any notice. Even if the whole part below the approve button will have DO NOT APPROVE I AM SPAM in 100px font, he will still click approve. That's the whole meaning of "robo reviewer". :) Feb 5, 2014 at 10:32
  • I appreciate all suggestions to impede robo-reviewers; but I don't think this would work, for the reasons noted already. Feb 5, 2014 at 14:28
  • Ok then, you can add declined tag to my question @AndrewBarber, if it is the right step to do to close this feature request.
    – Mp0int
    Feb 5, 2014 at 14:52
  • 1
    @FallenAngel Actually, I'm just an elected moderator, not a dev or community manager. So, while I can add that tag, it wouldn't be appropriate. Now that I look at it, the wording of my comment above does seem to suggest I'm involved in the decision process there! Anyway; +1 for a well-described and -intended feature request! Feb 5, 2014 at 15:29

1 Answer 1


I don't think this idea is really useful. Reviewers should be watching out anyway and if they need to be told that a user is anonymous in their face as a "watch out" message, it's a sign that they aren't reviewing carefully in general. Regardless, it's worthy to note that the very same people who robo-approve are the ones who are less likely to heed to warnings. There is also a system in place which (should) detect possible vandalism to posts and warn the user of that.

Any user can suggest vandalism, whether they are a registered user or suggest edits anonymously. There are quite a few accounts which create spam questions and answers on here which get removed quickly. If you see a edit that vandalises a post get approved, flag the post using "other" and describe the situation -- if found to be valid, moderators usually review ban the relevant users who approved the edit.

As previously said by others, the problem is not that there are anonymous users but that robo-approvers are approving everything in sight. They don't read the post in the first place, so what makes you think they are going to read some "nanny talk" that we place near the question? People don't read the numerous warnings we give about question quality (that we show to every new user), nor are the edit warnings particularly effective -- it's unlikely that throwing text at these sorts of people will help.

In the end, it comes down to the same issue with robo-approvers that we've always had, and which has been discussed numerous times by different people, from here to here to here.

  • 1
    I do read carefully. My point is robot-approvers. Maybe seeing a such warging, they just skip that review and continue with next one. Robot-approving is not good, and I am against it, but that can be a way to, at least, try to keep edits a bit non-vandailzed. As I mention in my question, doing this anonymously is easier to do an hard to ban.
    – Mp0int
    Feb 5, 2014 at 10:26
  • @FallenAngel: I understand that, sorry if my first few words mislead you -- my post was intended to discuss robo-approvers rather than your behaviour. Feb 5, 2014 at 10:28

You must log in to answer this question.

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