16

The previous edit notice read:

Thanks for your edit! This edit will be visible only to you until it is peer reviewed.

Now it says:

Thanks for submitting an edit. It is only visible to you until it’s been approved by trusted community members.

screenshot of new notice

I have bolded "trusted" for emphasis. I feel the new message is extremely degrading and demotivating. I'm not sure what was wrong with the old message to have it changed, but the new one causes belittlement and should be rephrased again.

It shouldn't imply that I'm not trusted. If people need more information there should be a help link at the end to https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges .

I make edits often, and I don't have to be pointed at in the face every time I contribute an edit and reminded that I'm not trusted, sounds like I'm being driven away.

Also, "trusted users" have a specific meaning in the system; the word refers to 20k+ users. The edit doesn't need to be reviewed by trusted users specifically; only by users with editing privileges.

Improve this question
5
  • 5
    As a note: The new text was introduced a few hours ago due to a feature request here: New Post Notices are live network-wide.
    – Tom
    Feb 5, 2020 at 16:19
  • 1
    I don't see the issue in being labeled as is. You're new, your content has no history to verify your status. I think you're reading too deeply into the status message -- we all get them. I still get notices that a post requires 5 reputation to answer on, or a reminder to vote on questions. Earn the trust, and the message goes away :) Remember that everybody has seen it, and the majority of users still see it every day, it's not singling you out here.
    – Sterling Archer
    Feb 5, 2020 at 16:32
  • 3
    @SterlingArcher It is probably confusing to refer to 'trust' in this case (where you need 2k reputation) since there is also a specific, named level of user called a trusted user at 20k reputation. That is probably reason alone, regardless of whether it's considered rude to say a low rep user isn't 'trusted' to unilaterally make edits to posts.
    – TylerH
    Feb 5, 2020 at 16:33
  • @TylerH that's totally fine and if there is a better verbage, go for it. I was mostly addressing that it's potentially degrading, I just don't see it as such.
    – Sterling Archer
    Feb 5, 2020 at 16:35
  • 2
    @SterlingArcher I've been a community member for 5 years. Besides, 2k is a long ways away, especially if I mostly make edits.
    – CausingUnderflowsEverywhere
    Feb 5, 2020 at 16:44

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
14

First of all, this shouldn't read "until it's been approved", because there's no guarantee that it will be (and if the edit gets rejected, you won't see "your" version anymore anyways). The former "review" term was correct in that regard.

Next, it doesn't boil down to trust, programming experience, account age, but to reputation. Yes, reputation is often related to the above, but what the system checks is the rep points. Why not keep it simple?

Thanks for submitting an edit. It is only visible to you until it has been reviewed by community members with enough reputation.

It has the bonus of linking to the relevant help pages, and introduce one to the reviews/reputation systems if they don't know them yet.

You can make it a bit more correct, though more verbose:

Thanks for submitting an edit. It is only visible to you until it has been reviewed by community members with enough reputation or the post author.

Improve this answer
7
  • 5
    The last version makes an important distinction, that a single user can approve or even stomp on the edit; so a shorter version is preferable: "Thanks for submitting an edit. It will be visible to you while it is awaiting review.". That way everything is clearly implied.
    – Rob
    Feb 5, 2020 at 17:50
  • 2
    @Rob so basically, rollback to the previous one (I agree!) 😆
    – Jenayah
    Feb 5, 2020 at 18:52
  • 3
    We should not imply it will be accepted. Often a new user will try to correct a mistake of a single letter, adding a change elsewhere to bypass the character minimum and missing another important improvement they ought to have made; those should be rejected (that's what privileged edits are for, or just leave it unbumped). Another case is where a new post is in the recent view and both a new user and privileged user make different edits (the new user submitting first), the privileged user simply stomps on the other edit; it is never seen (except by the editor). Don't fix what's not broken.
    – Rob
    Feb 5, 2020 at 19:01
  • 2
    “Trusted User” is actually the official title for 20,000 reputation.
    – Alex
    Feb 5, 2020 at 23:33
  • 1
    "only visible until it has been reviewed" still doesn't cover the possibility that it could get rejected.
    – TylerH
    Feb 11, 2020 at 14:47
  • 1
    @TylerH hence why it's "only visible to you" (technically reviewers can see it as well, bit that ETS overly complicated after that)
    – Jenayah
    Feb 11, 2020 at 15:10
  • 1
    @Jenayah No, the part that's lacking is the "until it's been reviewed". It implies that once it has been reviewed, it will be visible to everyone, but the mere existence of the edit, let alone its visibility, is entirely contingent upon the outcome of the review, which is not even hinted at as being a part of the process.
    – TylerH
    Feb 11, 2020 at 15:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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