I've made 50+ edits on SO, and I always have to wait for my edits to be peer-reviewed because my reputation (672) isn't high enough yet.

Shouldn't we give edit privileges based on the number of "trustworthy edits" made, in addition to the reputation privilege? It'd be more efficient, since the "peer-reviewers" won't have look at my edits every time I submit them.

But to determine whether a user is ready for this privilege, they should have greater than xx edits with >95% "trustworthiness".

Also, this doesn't mean that the low-rep trustworthy editor can do whatever he or she wants - it's just that their "review-priority" is lowered, and their edits are immediately submitted.

Abuse of this privilege will eventually lower their "trustworthiness", and it'll automatically be revoked.

  • 1
    see also: bypassing the review queue for avid editors
    – gnat
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 16:23
  • 2
    I would like to see this issue revisited and this discussion resumed. I came to post this same thing and found this post and others like it. I find the accepted answer below completely unsatisfactory. Reputation is given for too many other things besides edits for that to be an appropriate metric alone.
    – Jason C
    Commented Nov 10, 2014 at 2:43
  • I find parts of the proposal unclear. By "give edit privileges based on the number of "trustworthy edits" made, in addition to the reputation privilege?", do you mean as an alternative qualification method? That if one meets either qualification they get the privilege? And what do you mean by ""review-priority" is lowered, and their edits are immediately submitted."?
    – starball
    Commented Nov 17, 2022 at 0:57
  • You say "won't have look at my edits every time I submit them." and then "Abuse of this privilege will eventually lower their "trustworthiness", and it'll automatically be revoked." But how would abuse be detected and reported if there's no peer-review? Are you suggesting that a flag mechanism be added to flag bad edits outside the review queues?
    – starball
    Commented Nov 17, 2022 at 0:58
  • @starball The idea, apparently, is to replace pre-edit reviews with post-edit reviews above certain approve threshold. But I agree that the proposal is not well-thought.
    – EvgenKo423
    Commented Nov 17, 2022 at 6:36

3 Answers 3


You get reputation for the good edits you make and that will eventually give you edit privileges. I don't see a compelling reason to make the system more complicated. Most good editors will have their own good posts as well and they will bring them rep too. It's pretty easy to reach 2k.

  • 5
    It is not "pretty easy to reach 2k" on the strength of edits alone, which the questioner explained pretty clearly. In fact, you could say the system is needlessly complicated now in making the number of hurdles editors have to jump through to contribute to the site much higher than what people who contribute differently have to.
    – A.M.
    Commented Jun 17, 2013 at 14:40
  • 4
    @Mehrdad Afshari, It is not easy to reach 2k on low-traffic Stack Exchange sites. Commented Dec 12, 2013 at 11:40
  • 4
    This answer would only be valid if the only thing you received reputation for was good edits. You also get reputation for things that have nothing to do with edits.
    – Jason C
    Commented Nov 10, 2014 at 2:42
  • 1
    @JasonC you get rep for writing readable sensible answers and questions that follow the rules and norms of the site. Editing takes a poorly written question or answer and turns it into a readable sensible one that follows the rules and norms of the site. "Nothing to do with edits" couldn't be more wrong. Commented Nov 10, 2014 at 15:23
  • 1
    @KateGregory Writing a good question or answer does not reflect one's ability to edit existing questions and answers. One of a string of bad edits by a privileged user (see profile). Not proof of ability to edit. Admission of robo editing by privileged user. Just off the very top of my head. The list of hard evidence to the contrary goes on and on.
    – Jason C
    Commented Nov 10, 2014 at 15:42
  • 2
    Also, unrelated skill aside, sensible questions/answers != enough mediocre questions/answers to gain the privilege; it takes many downvotes to balance an upvote, for example.
    – Jason C
    Commented Nov 10, 2014 at 15:45
  • 2
    The entire proposal point seems to be missed entirely here, yet it's accepted and well upvoted. The entire answer can be contested simply by the scenario: "Users who get rep without doing edits, get 2k and can then edit without prior practice, peer reviews on their edits, etc". Also, "good editors will have their own good posts" The proposal is not contesting "good editors", the exact reverse in fact!
    – James
    Commented Nov 11, 2014 at 14:10

I think the rep limit is fine, but I do agree that in order to make edits without peer-review one should have been peer-reviewed at least once. Maybe the requirement should be 2000 rep + 3 approved edits.

  • 1
    More than 3 approved edits really - at least 20 perhaps. I don't think 3 edits being passed is a representation of a user knowing about edit ethics, politics, and the less obvious requirements. Although, it would need to be more complex anyway, taking into account rejected edits etc. As with just your proposed figures, a user could edit with 3 accepted and 10 rejected, which is not good. Even with my 20 a user could have a load rejected too.
    – James
    Commented Nov 10, 2014 at 17:55

I actually thought about proposing something similar myself, I didn't as I knew it wouldn't get very far.

This is a huge change within Stack, and such changes are rarely implemented as it has great potential to cause unforeseen issues and pitfalls.
Often such changes can only be tested in the wilds, and that is not often a good idea.

Counter argument is (yes I'm arguing with myself) current complexity and already established functionality should not void attaining additional complexity or large changes if they return valuable and worthwhile improvement(s).

Second (main):
It's currently only a theoretical issue. In that, no-one yet has shown any figures which show this is an actual issue.
We can speculate that a user with rep only from questions/answers (and not edit, reviews, etc) gets edit privileges and can change others' posts for the worst.


  1. How often does that scenario occur?
  2. How often is it likely to occur in the future?
  3. Given X frequency of occurrence, what is frequency of poor edits?
  4. How detrimental is it to the site?

None of these questions are answered and as such the proposal is speculative/theoretical problem solving, and that doesn't get far on Stack - I know from my own proposals (no bitterness, it's actually logical).

So I'll add my thoughts, even though it's still a theoretical issue.

The currently accepted answer is:

You get reputation for the good edits you make and that will eventually give you edit privileges

You also get reputation from never doing an edit, ever, and then get access to edit on other users posts without peer review.

I've seen many users who's >2k rep is from >80% questions, and the remainder a few answers, often on their own question.
These users have no knowledge of how the review queues work, best practice when editing, should they edit and change the users code to fix the bug, or just comment etc etc.

Not that they will then suddenly start editing, but that comes down to the bullet points above.

Most good editors will have their own good posts as well

The issue is not about what else "good editors" have, it's about the reverse, users without edit experience getting the privilege to edit without any rep towards said privilege.

It's pretty easy to reach 2k.

But this is an argument in favour of this proposal as well, in that it's easier to get more rep from questions and answers only.

Then, having never done any edits, they have not proven their worthiness to edit, they've not even had any practice where others reject their edit, they re-assess, ponder their decision, learn, etc.


A similar scenario:

A car mechanic, qualified with various certificates, can take an engine and gearbox apart in 3 hours, and put it all back together again in less time.
Can prepare and paint the entire car, and all with perfect precision and highest standards.

Should he therefore be allowed to drive on the roads, without a driving license?

No, the same as someone who has only asked questions and gained 2k rep shouldn't be allowed to edit questions. The two tasks are entirely different.

There are a lot of politics and other considerations to make in editing someone else's question, or answer, which you can only learn from editing, or being involved in the site more than just asking questions.

So I'm in favour of the proposal.

When I passed the 3k rep mark in (old) MSE I then had privileges which allowed me to do things I openly admit I had no clue about nor best practice. My rep was from being involved in debating/asking/answering etc.

Being decent, I learned/read/watched others a bit first before pushing buttons, but how many users just get privileges and use them without having learned about them first?

Again, I'm not sure of the actual frequency of this issue, so it might be pointless for the work implementing it, but either way I support the logic and reasons behind the idea.


You must log in to answer this question.

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