Sometimes I suggest an edit even on an SE site on which I have few reputation points, just to improve readability. In such cases the edit awaits review by a user with more reputation.

But here's the thing: those edits get denied quite often. And guess who the denier is in the vast majority of those cases. Yes, the person who wrote the post in the first place!

And those evaluations unsurprisingly can be quite lacking in impartiality. The larger the ego behind the words, the more so. There is a reason why authors and editors in the publishing world are separate people with separate professions.

Wouldn't it benefit the overall Q&A quality of the community if such reviews were limited to more (likely to be) objective 3rd party users?

Example: I noticed this question a little earlier, and was surprised that the Mars rover Perseverance had seemingly broken down, only to realize a minute later that that sentence was merely intended as a hypothetical scenario. As a suggested edit, I added an "if" to make that intent clear. But, as you've no doubt guessed by now, that effort was shot down immediately by the OP with the reason: "The edit does not improve the quality of the post. Changes to the content are unnecessary or make the post more confusing."

  • 1
    Author has a binding review vote, what you suggest is very drastic change, and with no real reason. It's the same as someone who wrote answer to a question, and when seeing the question author accepted a different answer, they will ask to not let users accept answers anymore because it's "broken". May 25 at 12:48
  • 2
    Does this answer your question? Could authors overturn recent community review decisions?, and big list of linked Q&As in right column. This is well established and long argued in favor of, if you have an opposing view and a reason (with multiple examples) of why it should be different then you have a hill to climb; or the ability to flag where you feel an exception should be made on a case by case basis.
    – Rob
    May 25 at 13:29
  • 2
    It ought to have been approved. The body of a post should be independent of the title. There must be a meta post about that. The edit summary is also fine, but it could also have included this argument, backed up by a link to a meta post (though really only necessary in hindsight). May 25 at 21:10

1 Answer 1


Blocking post authors from reviewing edits on their own contributions won't solve any of your described problems, for 2 reasons:

  1. The author has significant, if not final, say in how the post is formatted.
  2. Even if you'd deny the author a vote in the suggested edit's review, they can literally roll back the edit with a single click anyway.

Your specific example didn't add any useful distinction to the question, as the title of the question already made it clear it's a hypothetical scenario: "Could Ingenuity survive if Perseverance failed?"

  • 3
    The title should not have content that is not in the body.
    – philipxy
    May 25 at 17:58

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