26

I have been editing an answer on Stack Overflow, with some considerable amount of effort, and when I hit on Save Edits, the edit gets rejected with the following error. I got to know the meaning of this from this answer.

The edit queue is full at the moment - try again in a few minutes!

I tried in a few mins, and still it didn't work. I believe that some edits might be valuable and this resists the users from doing so.

Main Question: Is there a way to show the queue limit at the beginning of the editing process? (So that we won't spend time on doing the edit, knowing it will fail)

2
  • 8
    If you try to open the editor while the queue is already full, you'll get an error message and you won't be allowed to access the editor. You only get this message if you open it while it's not full and it later fills up. May 8 '20 at 19:01
  • This has been implemented already.
    – user707129
    Jun 18 '21 at 18:58
12

Is there a way to show the queue limit at the beginning of the editing process?

  • User @AryanBeezadhur wrote a user script a few days ago for this purpose. So you're definitely not the only one who is bothered by this ...
  • You could keep a tab open on the main review page and refresh it periodically. Right now it's on 491 reviews (for me), which is pretty close to the limit of 500.
  • When I wrote this, you only needed 17 more upvotes to reach 2000 reputation, at which you 1) can edit without using the queue and 2) help emptying the queue yourself.

Can't these edits be saved as drafts for later submissions?

What I do (for other purposes than avoiding the suggested edit queue) is saving the markdown in a text editor, along with a link to the post. Not ideal, but it works for me ...

Why cannot this limit be dynamic?

It is dynamic in the sense that it has already been adjusted for Stack Overflow. It's only 40 on almost all sites in the network, except for a single site which has a limit of 50. Stack Overflow's 500 is an entirely different order of magnitude. Increasing the limit will only cause edits to take longer to be approved; in fact, it would be better to decrease the limit if it never reaches 0.

3
  • The userscript you mentioned that was uploaded by AryanBeezadhur was self-deleted - You may want to adjust the language of your answer to mention that.
    – Spevacus
    Jun 18 '21 at 18:47
  • @Spevacus ... that's surprising. They're still active (or at least seen) on Stack Overflow; no idea why they did that...
    – Glorfindel Mod
    Jun 18 '21 at 19:44
  • @Glorfindel I'm also curious why they'd self-delete that. Seems like a pretty darn useful script :(
    – Spevacus
    Jun 18 '21 at 19:45
3

Maybe there needs be a limit of 0.95*MaxQueueLength that prevents people starting edits, so that existing edits can be finished.

Another thought: Why can't people with rep a little too low to make an edit without approval be allowed to review edits? Then edits that can't be saved would sometimes result in a reduction in queue length.

3
  • 1
    I would often just press the edit button to look at the markdown of a post. Limiting this any further would be annoying.
    – Luuklag
    Apr 11 '21 at 9:49
  • @Luuklag You could always go to the revision history and get the source from there. Apr 11 '21 at 20:52
  • Yes please! It's so harmful to tell people they cannot submit the edit they carefully crafted. It's much more likely for those big edits to hit the limit than for quick edits, because there's more time for the queue to grow to the limit. So we're discouraging exactly the wrong people. 0.95*MaxQueue is THE solution. It means those who started will be much less likely to be unable to submit. Jun 18 '21 at 17:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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