Subsequent edits suggested either

  • within their own grace period or
  • within the grace period of the post

but after the initial edit was reviewed by a human, will appear to be a part of the original suggested edit, even if said review occurred prior to the subsequent additions to the suggestion.

Here's an example: I suggested an edit on Code Review, to change the post's title from

My Code is written in the Editor Processing and it codes a Pong - Game! Would be glad if someone could rate my Code! TY

to Pong in Processing. @SirPython reviewed it, approving the edit.

Then, I realised the question's tags were wrong, so within my original edit's grace period, I threw out and added .

I noticed that even though this edit occurred after SirPython's review, because it's in the grace period, it looks as if they'd reviewed it when it had not yet happened.

Steps to reproduce what I'm talking about

  1. Suggest an edit to a post (preferably a question) on a site where you don't have edit privileges, that

  2. gets reviewed within a grace period, then

  3. within said grace period, append to the same edit, and

  4. observe that the original review now contains all the subsequent suggestions in question, even though some of them had not yet happened at time of review

Why am I posting this?

I think this could be abused by suggesters and reviewers alike to allow harmful material to sneak through review, or to get reviewers in trouble by suggesting harmful content that shouldn't pass review, but will seem to have.

Moreover, there's no way for anyone to see the exact timeline of events inside the grace period, which exacerbates the issue.

What's the "request" here?

Change the behaviour of reviews of suggested edits within a grace period such that reviews only contain what the reviewer actually reviewed. muru's answer is pretty much this.

  • I want to say this is a dupe, but I can't find one. Mar 6, 2016 at 22:47
  • 1
    @NathanTuggy there are a lot of posts with similar titles, but I can't find any that actually talk about this or reviews at all
    – cat
    Mar 6, 2016 at 23:02
  • @NathanTuggy Related.
    – cat
    Mar 6, 2016 at 23:51

2 Answers 2


A really good solution should be, as @animuson has put up in this post, having a line of text which says how many times edits have been done during the grace period, which can be expanded for the reviewer to see the subsequent edits:

enter image description here

This would be very helpful for stopping people from sneaking in malicious/harmful edits, after a couple of approvals in the review queue.

This would also be a clean process of notifying the reviewers about the edits, rather than having a notification pop up in the review queue after every grace-period edit.

  • 2
    I like it! Showing what the changes were might be good too, but maybe that's too much work.
    – cat
    Mar 7, 2016 at 1:55
  • 1
    I almost forgot: +1 for the freehand circle.
    – cat
    Mar 7, 2016 at 2:01
  • 1
    haha You might want to thank @animuson for that! :D
    – Dawny33
    Mar 7, 2016 at 2:02
  • 1
    Also +1 because every meta site needs woodchucking
    – cat
    Mar 7, 2016 at 2:08

There's a lock applied to suggested edits when a reviewer is reviewing them, so that somebody who's trying to improve an edit doesn't get ninja'd by other reviewers.

I think this can be extended so that the grace period, if still ongoing, is terminated immediately when a reviewer first sees the suggested edit. This could also be applied outside the review queue, when a user with editing privileges approves or rejects an edit at the post.

The grace period is already terminated early if another user comments on the post. This would extend that behaviour to being reviewed.

  • I think I like this more than the other one because this solves it unilaterally, but it will likely be more controversial.
    – cat
    Mar 7, 2016 at 2:43
  • Note that the inline approval/rejection uses the reviewing mechanism. Mar 14, 2016 at 22:43
  • 1
    @NathanTuggy that should make this easier since there's only one place to check.
    – muru
    Mar 14, 2016 at 22:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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