When an edit suggestion is "improved" instead of flat-out approved, the suggestion is still marked as approved, but the approver is listed as Community instead of the user who improved it (example). It seems like it should still attribute the approval to the user who improved it, as they're the one who caused the suggestion to be approved


2 Answers 2


This is by design.

I wanted a simple way to track all the edits that are approved through "improve", it is still easy to track who caused it, cause they are the editors of the revision directly after it.

If I change it so the user approving is the person doing the improve, it will be very hard to do analysis on what effect improve has.

I also agree with the logic, "community" is unblocking the edit for you so you can continue editing the post.

  • Technically you're unblocking the edit for you, but I think I changed my mind about it anyway; it's at least unambiguous this way what happened Commented Feb 24, 2011 at 19:42
  • But, there is a badge as an incentive for putting effort into dealing with suggested edits. By improving an answer, presumably involving more effort than a simple "agree" or "disagree", this counter doesn't get incremented (well, I'm assuming this is the case). It might encourage bad habits in order to get the badge: not bothering to improve a suggested edit, or intentionally accepting then editing.
    – sblair
    Commented Sep 12, 2011 at 20:08
  • @waffles - Late to the party, but I'm wondering if this is considered an "improve"? I've seen it happen several times: a suggested edit is likely to be rejected, but the OP modifies their post (and in the process clobbers the suggested edit), causing the suggested edit to be marked "Approved" (also resulting in +2, but I'm not as concerned about that). I'm guessing this has been discussed before; I just didn't know where to go rant about it.
    – Rob Hruska
    Commented Nov 22, 2011 at 3:25
  • @RobHruska that should still count as an approve for Kate G
    – waffles
    Commented Nov 22, 2011 at 3:27
  • @waffles - Even though she voted to reject? Also, for the record, I just found this (for more context for me). I'm still searching around to gather more context and understanding around the Community-approved edits and why they happen. I'm sure you're sick of answering peoples' questions on this :)
    – Rob Hruska
    Commented Nov 22, 2011 at 3:29
  • @waffles - I guess my main concern is this: editors making edits that would normally get rejected, but instead get Community-approved because of an OP edit. The suggester then gets the impression that such edits are okay (since it wasn't rejected) and will continue to make similar edits. I suppose it will work itself out over time (since the OP-edit-clobbbering-suggested-edit situation probably doesn't happen often, and their similar edits would then start getting rejected), but it might cause for some confusion up front.
    – Rob Hruska
    Commented Nov 22, 2011 at 3:34
  • @RobHruska its way too much of an edge case to worry about imho ... I agree it can be a tad confusing
    – waffles
    Commented Nov 22, 2011 at 3:46
  • @waffles - That's cool, I'm not too concerned. It was just the second time I'd seen it happen, so I thought I'd ask. Thanks for the timely responses.
    – Rob Hruska
    Commented Nov 22, 2011 at 3:47
  • @waffles Is the rationale the same for "reject & improve" edits?
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented Mar 2, 2012 at 14:58
  • @waffles If community owns the approval, does that mean the actual approver doesn't get credit towards a proofreader badge? If so, is that fair to do just for statistical purposes?
    – Double AA
    Commented May 10, 2012 at 6:03
  • @DoubleAA yes but you get to progress towards the "Copy Editor" badge, which I think is more important anyway
    – waffles
    Commented May 10, 2012 at 6:06
  • @waffles One does not exclude the other.
    – Double AA
    Commented May 10, 2012 at 6:16
  • @waffles Given that community user owns the un-improved edit and that post owners can review suggested edits on their posts even without the general privilege, someone with low rep can suggest edits on a sockpuppet's questions to gain +2 rep and as long as the sockpuppet improves them, then the system-gaming won't be caught in a user merge or possibly at all. Unlikely, but a loophole all the same :)
    – Double AA
    Commented Oct 15, 2012 at 3:54

The main element is that Improving can happen when you don't have the necessary number of votes. As such, when you have users who end up "one-click approving" via improving, it would be confusing to users who will now see 1-2 approvers required, rather than a flat 2. We'd get a lot of questions on Meta that ask "Why did this revision only require one user to approve?", and eventually a whole lot of mess returning to why we need 2 in the first place. By fixing it at Community's decision, it's a very clear statement that we can point to as to why it shows up.

After the fix of an earlier bug, the Improving user will always be the revision right after the improved edit. This lets us keep the accountability for the person who Improved the answer, but also gives us a clean way to track various statistics about Improve vs. Approve - who tends to Improve rather than Approve, who tends to get Improved rather than Approved, etc.

  • Good points thanks! So maybe have the change only when there's already someone who voted to Approve? Commented Jul 12, 2011 at 12:42
  • 1
    @Shadow That'd still miss out on the tracking bonus, though. In fact, it'd be even harder to detect because then such an Improve could not be distinguished from someone who just made the last Approve vote then submitted an edit anyway.
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Commented Jul 12, 2011 at 12:51
  • Hmm.. so what about "Improved 5 hours ago.." in the suggested edit page? Commented Jul 12, 2011 at 13:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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