26

In addition to "accept", "reject" and "improve", I'd like to be able to "ignore" a suggested edit. I would use this when I don't feel I understand the content well enough to do any of the existing options.

This would allow me to clear out everything from the list, so the little counter in the page header would be more useful. Right now I'm not sure if "5" is the same 5 suggested edits that I didn't want to take any action on, or if they are new.

Improve this question
0

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
5

I don't know if this is feasible. The three current options, "accept", "reject", and "improve" affect the global state of the post. An "ignore" option would only be specific to you, so it would require a separate piece of information to be stored for each user who viewed the suggested edit.

Improve this answer
7
  • 2
    -1: Of course it is feasible. It does not have to be a separate database entry/table etc. A possibly simple way would be to use browser cookies. Of course, it might not be worth the effort to implement such a feature as suggested edits tend to disappear quickly by themselves...
    – Aryabhatta
    Mar 21, 2011 at 20:04
  • 6
    @Moron: "might not be worth the effort to implement such a feature" is what "not feasible" means.
    – Bill the Lizard
    Mar 21, 2011 at 20:05
  • No, it might be feasible, but still might not be worth the effort... Besides, your answer seems to indicate a separate entry in database would be required. The -1 still stands :-)
    – Aryabhatta
    Mar 21, 2011 at 20:08
  • @Moron: Fixed that for you.
    – Bill the Lizard
    Mar 21, 2011 at 20:27
  • can't we have a compromise though? I think a button that just hides the suggestion (like the accept and reject do) should be good enough. We don't even need to store any data server0side if we accept not having a "you voted to ignore" this edit message like we have for accepted posts.
    – hugomg
    Nov 26, 2011 at 17:08
  • Bill, of course a database solution would be overkill, but couldn't the "ignore" information just be stored in SESSION? That seems to be an easy solution and it would improve reviewing a lot.
    – Tomas
    Apr 2, 2012 at 12:28
  • Don't forget local storage :)
    – Tim Post
    Apr 2, 2012 at 12:43
5

I would suggest 'not sure' as the button text, as that's really the only reason to skip an edit in the queue. Moderators currently have this ability when dealing with certain types of chat flags, and it serves the same purpose. Don't show us a number that makes us want to do something if there's nothing we can do about it.

As for the complexity, I'm not sure of that. Perhaps local storage would be sufficient? That would work for most people, unless you changed computers (or wiped out storage). Then again, this might be something that could soak in a user script for a while.

My concern with cookie / local storage is the amount of clutter.

Improve this answer
3
3

The new /review setup adds a "Not Sure" button to every suggested edit, so this is now implemented.

Improve this answer
0

I agree with Bill the Lizard that a database solution would be overkill in this case, since you would need to store User-Edit specific information. But the "ignore" information could just be stored in SESSION, that would be enough. This seems to be an easy solution and it would improve reviewing a lot!

Improve this answer
3
  • 4
    ...what session? You make a false assumption we even have a session...
    – Nick Craver
    Apr 2, 2012 at 13:12
  • uh.. oh... website without sessions? Seems like you started completely new era in web development (or maybe just new to me? :))
    – Tomas
    Apr 2, 2012 at 14:47
  • 1
    The latter :) This isn't really a new thing, we just don't have sessions like that. We have a record that you're logged in on a shared redis instance (to match your login cookie) but that's it...no other data stored there.
    – Nick Craver
    Apr 3, 2012 at 10:50

You must log in to answer this question.