This isn't to change to the current rejection process or review queue in any way.

There was recently a rejected edit on one of my answers.

It was correct to reject from the reviewer's point of view, because variable names in code were changed, however, the edit would have been beneficial to the post in this case, and I would have liked the suggested edit to have been accepted.

I edited my answer and manually added the rejected suggested changes myself. On this occasion it was a small edit, but this would be quite time consuming if it was a more substantial edit.

It would be useful if we had a feature where a user can approve/improve an edit on their own question or answer which was previously rejected by community review.

Ideally, there would also be the option to Edit & Approve so we can change any bits if necessary.

Perhaps (for example) an option in the Suggested Edits history where only the OP, and maybe moderators, can select to approve or improve a rejected edit.

OPs can currently approve suggested edits, overruling the review queue, so this would just be an extension of that - being able to approve after 3 users have rejected.

marked as duplicate by S.L. Barth, Patrick Hofman, Anthony Pham, Shokhet, Fish Below the Ice Oct 2 '15 at 19:27

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.

  • 2
    @ShadowWizard This is not a duplicate, although that question states that it can't be done, why don't we just make it so it can be done? (I just edited the question to clarify) – Jojodmo Apr 6 '15 at 23:02
  • 1
    No, this is still far from being written as feature request. – Shadow Apr 6 '15 at 23:14
  • @ShadowWizard alright, I just edited the post to make it a little more like a feature reques – Jojodmo Apr 6 '15 at 23:41
  • 2
    Voted to re-open. The other is asking how to re-approve a rejected edit which has simply been confirmed in the answer - the other Q is finished. This is proposing we allow being able to do so. I agree, this is not a great feature request, although that doesn't mean it's a dupe of another question just because of the same subject.Let's just improve this one. – James Apr 7 '15 at 0:30
  • @Jojodmo I've made a huge change to your question. I believe I have encapsulated what you want, but please review it, change whatever as necessary, or roll back if you disagree with most of it etc. I noticed you were last seen 2 mins ago, so hopefully you'll see this before other users. – James Apr 7 '15 at 1:25
  • 1
    @James Thanks, that makes the question into way more of a feature request. I added some more ideas, but I didn't really change too much of what you added. – Jojodmo Apr 7 '15 at 1:35
  • 1
    Yup, @James did a good job. Would have reopened myself if I'd spot earlier. – Shadow Apr 7 '15 at 9:29
  • @ShadowWizard ^^ – ᔕᖺᘎᕊ Jun 21 '15 at 16:35
  • @ShadowWizard Shouldn't that question be closed as a duplicate of this one? It was posted earlier, but this one has answers, while the other doesn't making it more useful to future readers – Jojodmo Jun 21 '15 at 17:02
  • @Jojodmo not sure, none of the answers here are official, so it's no big deal. – Shadow Jun 21 '15 at 17:46
  • @ᔕᖺᘎᕊ accidentally tagged the wrong person... ^^ – Jojodmo Jun 21 '15 at 23:13
  • No I meant to ping him - I knew you'd be pinged anyways. I see now there was no point though, because I forgot @ShadowWizard doesn't have a feature-request gold badge...yet :P – ᔕᖺᘎᕊ Jun 22 '15 at 6:17
  • 2
    @ᔕᖺᘎᕊ huh, but I'm really close to that badge! :-D – Shadow Jun 22 '15 at 6:21
  • @ᔕᖺᘎᕊ Oh, I meant to say that I tagged the wrong person. I was trying to tell you about the above comment that says that the other post should be marked duplicate of this one (or they should be merged), because the other one has less community input. – Jojodmo Jun 27 '15 at 23:04
  • @Jojodmo Ahh... Whoops! However my reply would be the same as Shadow's! – ᔕᖺᘎᕊ Jun 28 '15 at 8:42

This might be integrated into the revision history of a post. Here is the revision history of your question.

Something like this?

enter image description here

This could be visible to anyone in my opinion, since suggested edits can be seen too.

  • Are you saying to have "reject suggested edits" in edit history? Revision history is for actual edits which have occurred, not "attempted" edits IMO, and given there may be various/numerous rejected edits on any given Q or A, the edit history could get cluttered and become less useful. – James Apr 7 '15 at 10:50
  • 2
    Indeed, it can get cluttered. It has also some positive effect. It is easier to see people editing numerous times. It might also help diagnose edit patterns. – Patrick Hofman Apr 7 '15 at 11:20
  • 2
    @PatrickHofman Maybe rejected ones could be hidden automatically, and you can click something to make them show? Kind of like displaying deleted posts on profiles – Jojodmo Apr 7 '15 at 19:37
  • 2
    @Jojodmo: Why not. Seems a good idea. Maybe show a line between to show there is something to be made visible. – Patrick Hofman Apr 8 '15 at 7:20
  • 1
    To solve the cluttering issue, the rejected edits could be combined, and could be shown like 6 suggested edits rejected. show rejected edits. On larger posts, I would assume there has to be a lot of rejected edits, which would clutter the revision history if they weren't combined... – Jojodmo Jun 12 '15 at 21:11
  • Good idea. I think @Jojodmo's suggestion should be edited into the answer. I'm voting up on the strength of his suggested modification to the proposal. – Wildcard Jun 19 '17 at 22:28

While this will be very useful feature to have, I don't think it's likely to be used very frequently, so I think we should keep it simple.

I suggest a simple text link located in the review history page to approve rejected edits.

The link should only be visible to the OP of the question or answer (and moderators) as a way to overrule if the final decision was rejected.



Putting rejected edits in the Revision History is ok on face value, and would cater for this feature request (PatrickHofman's answer).
But this would mix different data together, as the Revision History is for "edits" - and rejected edit suggestions are not technically "edits" as they were rejected (no edit took place).

The history of rejected edits is not really useful, certainly not alongside actual Q or A edit history.
For monitoring if users have multiple rejections, the data should be collated elsewhere (i.e. don't try to use Revision history for too many things, it has it's own single purpose).

  • Are edit suggestions still shown in notifications once rejected? Otherwise there's no easy way for most post owners to get to them at all, or even know they're present. – Nathan Tuggy Oct 1 '15 at 21:01

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