-18

Currently, new users are able to see PENDING edits on their own questions. They can also accept or reject this edit directly withouth the need to VOTE.

For new users there is more possibility that they will simply reject or overwrite edits as they are not trusted users.

My suggestion is simple: remove the option to REVIEW pending edits on your own questions for new users. These pending edits should ALSO be REVIEWED by trusted users.

Just to be specific: I am speaking in general and not about specific case.

Also consider the following situation: One posts question A. This gets answered. Then another one posts question B. This gets closed because it is similar than post A, but author of post A reverts / rejects all edits on his post. Yet post B is still closed

|improve this question
  • FYI: the downvotes here mean people don't agree with what you suggest. Please, don't take them personally and they do not mean the question itself is bad. It's just a way to mark a feature request as popular or not popular, and do note SE team sometime implements unpopular requests as well (e.g. this), so no need to delete this just because people don't agree with it. – Shadow The Princess Wizard Jul 8 at 8:25
  • 4
    It feels a bit arrogant if we have the power to overrule/block an OP when they know that suggested edit is wrong. There can be accidents but I don't have the impression this causes major disruptions. – rene Jul 8 at 8:27
  • 3
    @MatejJ you'll be surprised how many "thanks for the edit" comments I got over the years from post authors who were well aware their post was not perfect. – Shadow The Princess Wizard Jul 8 at 8:43
  • sure, but based on external feedback I learned that new users already find it troublesome their posts get edited. It is a reason they refuse to use SE sites. Disallowing them to overrule an edit will not address that concern. If anything, we need more guidance, not road-blocks. – rene Jul 8 at 9:50
  • 5
    Please don't make more work for others by vandalizing your posts. By posting on the Stack Exchange (SE) network, you've granted a non-revocable right, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, for SE to distribute the content (i.e. regardless of your future choices). By SE policy, the non-vandalized version is distributed. Thus, any vandalism will be reverted. Please see: How does deleting work? …. If permitted to delete, there's a "delete" button below the post, on the left, but it's only in browsers, not the mobile app. – Makyen Jul 8 at 17:16
  • 4
    @MatejJ: You cannot unilaterally delete your question if it has upvoted answers. You're stuck with it. – Nicol Bolas Jul 8 at 17:18
  • 1
    You can't delete because there's existing answers. In theory you could flag asking for a mod to undelete, but it seems unfair to the folks who answered. – Journeyman Geek♦ Jul 9 at 11:51
  • I dissagree. They should if the edit is on there own question – Asadefa Jul 13 at 17:16
  • @Asadefa read the question again. They would be able to edit it but the edit would need to be reviewed by others – user517588 Jul 15 at 8:48
  • I can see most upvotes are because people dont even read entire question and therefore dont understand it – user517588 Jul 30 at 11:48
12

Authors of posts should always be able to edit their own posts. Otherwise, there would be no possibility of them fixing mistakes they realize they've made, adding new information they've thought of, or responding to comments and answers.

If I'm a new author and there's already an edit that's pending, what should happen?

As I see it, there are three possibilities:

  1. The system does not let me edit my post at all. (This could also be represented by me not being shown an edit link under my post in the first place.)

    But if I'm allowed to change my own posts in whatever way I want when there isn't a pending edit, why should that ability be removed when there is a pending edit? Imagine my frustration if I have to wait for a pending edit to be processed before I can do anything with my own post. And, if the proposed edit is implemented, I can simply reject it after the fact anyway by changing it back once I have control again. So why delay this? It seems it would only waste everybody's time and cause ill will.

  2. The system doesn't show me the review dialogue for my own post. It brings up the normal edit box and let's me make the changes I want.

    But this is no different than silently rejecting the pending edit. In fact, by not showing me what the proposed changes are, it not only punishes the person who suggested those changes—but doesn't present me with the ability to review what that person thought would improve my post.

  3. The system responds as it currently does. I click on edit, I see there is already a proposed edit, and I'm asked what I want to do with it. This is my post, not somebody else's, and I would have the ability to edit it anyway if there weren't anything pending.

    To me, this seems like the most reasonable approach. I retain control over my own posts (and my own posts only until I've reached a certain amount of reputation), but it also gives me the ability to assess any proposed changes (that I wouldn't otherwise be aware of), and decide what I want to have happen to my own post.

Unless there is another option I'm missing, I don't see what could be put in place that would be a better alternative to the existing behaviour.

|improve this answer
  • @MatejJ Not currently, it doesn't. (At least not directly; that would be my second list item.) Currently, it presents you with the review dialogue where you get to approve or reject the pending edit. But, outside of any pending edit, authors, at any level of reputation, can edit their own posts as often as they wish. And they can do that in spite of any edits made to them by somebody else. – Jason Bassford Supports Monica Jul 8 at 9:00
  • 3
    @MatejJ: "It is not the question of editing, but the question of reviewing others edits." The point is that one requires the other. If a post has a pending edit, the only way for someone to be able to make another edit is for that pending edit to be either accepted or rejected. That's the nature of any collaborative editing system that doesn't allow for forks/remerges. So if the OP cannot unilaterally accept/reject a pending edit, then the OP loses the ability to edit their post at all. Therefore, they must have the ability to review edits on their posts. That's the nature of the beast. – Nicol Bolas Jul 8 at 14:56
  • 1
    @MatejJ If there is a pending edit and the author wants to edit their post, what are you suggesting should happen when they try to do so? – Jason Bassford Supports Monica Jul 8 at 17:29
9

For new users there is more possibility that they will simply reject edits as they are not trusted users

No, you can't throw such assumption without proof. First please come with extensive research, e.g. latest 100 reviews made by post authors. Then we'll see, but I'm pretty sure you'll see post authors can make good decision like any other user.

|improve this answer
4

You seem to think you know better what the post should look like then the user that wrote it.

You don't.

Whatever a user's post looks like, people vote on it. Upvote. Downvote. Comment. Close. As a new (or old) user it feels bad enough to be judged by random people on the internet. Now imagine they judge you on something you did not even write or agree with yourself!

No. We cannot have it both ways. If we want to vote on content and have the user's account accumulate that points, the vote has to be on something that user has the final say over. I'm not going to judge accounts based on something that account had no influence over. That's unfair.

As an editor, people have zero accountability. Any votes will go to the original account. That account is held accountable for anything written in their name. So no, you cannot force them to accept your edit. Even if all the world agrees it's correct. You are free to post the correct version yourself. Or edit and hope for acceptance. Or comment. But you cannot force your version of "correct" upon another so that it stands in their name.

That said, I rarely have a user reject an edit on an objective base. Objective criteria are the English language (spellchecker) and the Stack Exchange formatting (preview) and probably nothing else. And if one rejects those edits... not my problem, I tried.

|improve this answer
  • @MatejJ Sure, why not. I see not harm in that. In fact, that is the entire point of duplicate votes. How would an edit have prevented that? And how would forcing said edit on somebody make them more willing to use the site in question? – nvoigt Jul 8 at 10:33
  • 3
    @MatejJ: "as a new user he or she belives that the question is perfect." Your entire question is founded on this premise that new users are people who cannot accept any changes that deviate from what they originally wrote. That has not been my experience at all. Indeed, I've seen new users accepting edits that are in fact pretty terrible. Are there some new users like that? Sure, but not enough to warrant overturning the system over. – Nicol Bolas Jul 8 at 15:01

You must log in to answer this question.