50

This question already has an answer here:

The winner of a tennis game must win with a two point advantage. Similarly, a suggested edit should not be approved unless it can get two more approvals than rejections. This should greatly reduce incidents like this one from happening.

marked as duplicate by Martijn Pieters, JDB, slugster, hims056, Aziz Shaikh Feb 7 '14 at 4:56

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.

  • 5
  • So you want to do away with the 2 or 3 vote for approval? and just go with a +2 vote to approve? – psubsee2003 Feb 7 '14 at 1:27
  • @psubsee2003 Well, 2 - 0 = 2, so no change for sites other than Stack Overflow anyway. – michaelb958 Feb 7 '14 at 1:30
  • 3
    @psubsee2003: You can still start with a three vote approval threshold, but it has to be +2 over the rejects after that. The example I cited (at best 3 out of 5) would have required one more approval vote. – Robert Harvey Feb 7 '14 at 1:51
  • Can someone please explain first why exactly such edit should be rejected? If it should, the guidelines should be reworded to make it clearer. – sashkello Feb 7 '14 at 2:32
  • 1
    @sashkello, no, I'm not going to explain to you why that particular edit should be rejected. There's another entire question on the subject; go read that question if you want to understand. This is not the place to debate whether that edit should have been rejected. Please don't clutter up this comment thread with a debate that belongs over there. – D.W. Feb 7 '14 at 2:50
  • @D.W. I'm not clattering it with debate. I'm asking to clarify. This is not a question to you, but to the author of the proposal. I feel like the problem is not with how it is voted, but why it is voted like that. That edit was approved because rules say that such edits should be approved. If it is not so, the rules should be reworded. I don't see any connection with the voting system whatsoever. Three people voted to approve, would be enough to make it through anyway unless people by pure accident would vote alternately. – sashkello Feb 7 '14 at 3:02
  • @sashkello See here. Please don't transfer conversation from there to here. – hichris123 Feb 7 '14 at 3:04
  • @sashkello, whether you are asking for debate or for clarification is besides the point. This comment thread is not the place for the discussion you want to have. Take it to the question over there, where that topic is being discussed. – D.W. Feb 7 '14 at 3:24
  • 1
    Does the supposed dupe amount to a "tennis rule," like the one I am suggesting? – Robert Harvey Feb 7 '14 at 3:53
  • @sashkello: Seems like your question is already adequately covered over at the question I linked. – Robert Harvey Feb 7 '14 at 3:54
  • 1
    @RobertHarvey, when N is set to 2, then yes, it does follow the suggested rule. I'll take either, honestly. Really, though, IMO the problem is that roboreviewers rubberstamp things faster than people that take the time to analyze things can hit the Reject button. A different threshold for approval won't do any good if it's approved faster than anyone can hit Reject. – Charles Feb 7 '14 at 6:25

Browse other questions tagged .