Sometimes, when users improve a post through the review interface, they see a reasonably poor edit suggestion, improve it and leave it ticked because they've either forgotten to remove it, don't know what it does or can't be bothered to.

This can result in awarding reputation to suggested edits which are poor quality, so should the "suggested edit was helpful" checkbox be unticked by default?

Typical example of such a situation.


I would rather have the choice be made prior to the decision to edit:

Reject and Edit

So if you click the new Reject and Edit the edit is deemed not useful. If you click improve, it is. I always found it odd that we click 'Improve' to totally disregard the previous edit. This will make it a lot easier for the person doing the review to look at the edit, decide if it's good or not, and then make whatever changes are necessary (and I think it would increase the number of rejected edits, which is sorely needed)

Update: this is now live.

  • 2
    I'd assume that if you click "reject and edit" that you'd start off from the original revision, right? – Qantas 94 Heavy Apr 2 '14 at 2:39
  • @Qantas, that would make sense. If you want to use their edit as a base, I think you should be hard pressed to suggest it wasn't helpful. – jmac Apr 2 '14 at 3:26
  • This is a nice idea, especially with going from different edit bases. It'd have to clear, though, that Reject and Edit would only cast a reject vote until the edit is finished. Then, if the review hasn't finished by the time your revision is made, it'll apply your edit and Community will reject the original suggestion. – Chris Forrence Apr 3 '14 at 10:27
  • 1
    I don't know.. I think there are plenty of instances where you want to work from the edit even when rejecting. Most often when I want to reject and improve it's because they fixed say 20% of the obvious errors, I don't want to have to approve to avoid redoing their work. – OGHaza Apr 3 '14 at 11:48
  • @OG, if they are lessening your workload by 20%, isn't that a helpful edit? And if the 20% isn't significant, redoing it shouldn't be either. – jmac Apr 3 '14 at 13:18
  • 1
  • It appears that this has been implemented! – Chris Forrence Sep 5 '14 at 21:40
  • 1
    status-completed? – Braiam Sep 5 '14 at 23:59
  • 3
    @jmac: this is also about discouraging minor edits though. An editor that goes across 200 posts fixing one common spelling error should not receive 400 points if they ignored everything else in those posts. Sure, I can re-apply the same spelling correction manually, but what if it was a big post and the error was there 3 times? Now I have to search them all out too. I can see where you are coming from, sorta, but how do we handle such editing rep hunters now? – Martijn Pieters Sep 6 '14 at 8:25
  • I also want an option to start from the edit the user made, it's annoying to have to click "Improve", copy the whole thing, cancel and then "Reject and Edit". That or bring back "Too minor" reason. – Jonathan Drapeau Sep 10 '14 at 13:19

I agree that it makes it less of a decision process. However, you would encounter a similar issue with keeping it unticked, making it harder for new users with helpful edits to gain reputation!

As a suggestion, what if we left the choice to whether or not the edit was helpful/unhelpful to the submit button? It'd look something like this (only better):

There are two buttons to replace "Save Edits": "Helpful" and "Not Helpful"

It would probably be a safe assumption that people would assume that it also saves the above edits, which could be tested.

You must log in to answer this question.

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