So I'm going through the edit motions, and am presented by this one. It wrecks the code spacing. It's a bogus edit.

Since it's not quite bad enough to be vandalism, I spend the time writing an explanation in the custom field. By the time I hit 'reject' the approval bots have waved it through.

Since some of us actually might care about the correctness of edits, should I be forced to correct this bogus approval by going back and editing the post back to the original spacing?

This is not the first time I've been rebuffed when rejecting a pretty bad edit. Surely this process needs to be 'flaggable' so we can identify those abusing or misusing their edit approval powers? The 'test' edits are too easy to spot and don't seem to a sufficient deterrent to number bumpers (people who do edits purely to bump numbers and earn badges).

  • 4
    It would be nice if you could reject NOW and write the custom reason at your leisure (say within the next couple of minutes) – Richard Tingle Apr 8 '14 at 11:24
  • Solution: lower your standards for vandalism. </maybe-sarcasm> – michaelb958--GoFundMonica Apr 8 '14 at 11:25
  • 2
    I sometimes do that, if a bad edit has been accepted, I go to the post and rollback. – Toon Krijthe Apr 8 '14 at 11:26
  • Not a duplicate as they have rejected plenty, not zero. – Charles Goodwin Apr 8 '14 at 14:07
  • @CharlesGoodwin doesn't matter. Same core problem. What you call "number bumpers" is more commonly known as "robo reviewers". The amount of rejections isn't really relevant. – Shadow Wizard is Ear For You Apr 8 '14 at 14:55

Browse other questions tagged .