Meta Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for meta-discussion of the Stack Exchange family of Q&A websites. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
When trying to approve tag wiki edits I'm presented with the following text:
Out of votes - you may not vote on this user any more today.
The text is misleading in that it makes me think that I may be able to approve another proposed tag wiki with a different author. However, this is not the case.
Why not simply let the text say:
Out of votes
Thanks for considering this.
From my understanding there are 3 out-of-votes scenarios:
They should all be clearly labeled.
Currently the last two notify you correctly. The first one shares a message with the second one.
I added all sorts of weird and wonderful protection to the suggested edit system.
The intention was always to have 2 strong bits of protections:
Theoretic ... I said ... I bet you were wondering why.
The theory is that if Bill starts flooding the suggestion queue with tons of suggestions we want to "balance out the voting". We do not want "Fred" to be the only person approving or declining Bill's edits. So we set a hard limit. Fred can only vote on 5 suggestions by Bill per day.
However, somewhere along the line I checked in an implementation that acts very differently to the desired behavior.
I performed the checking on the post owner instead of the suggestion owner. In practice this had a very undesired effect, the culmination of which is this bug.
All tag wikis have the same owner, the community user. The broken check was ensuring that you can only vote on 5 tag wikis a day.
Further more, in reality a large distribution of posts are edited. It is unlikely that there will ever be 40 edits on Jon Skeet's post in the queue at any point in time. So the check was never really triggering for non tag wiki approvals.
In retrospect I am not convinced we need the second throttle. Votes are limited, the only time you will have a "vote binge" on any one suggestor is if they decide to flood the queue. Flooding the queue is bad, and I do not mind if people can help out as quickly as possible in such a case, even if vote variety suffers.
For now I have commented out the check, discussing with Jeff removing check (2) on a permanent basis. (keep in mind check 2 has never been in place and we are not seeing any issues around this)
