First time I've got the following message on SO:

Too many of your edits were rejected, try again in 7 days.

Although, I have made ~50 accepted edits this day.

I'm sure that should outweigh the ~5 rejected edits, right?

My suggestion:

bool allowEdit(USER u)
    if(u.rejected * 5 > u.accepted)

Think of it this way: if I do a 1000 accepted edits, and mess up on 5 [rejected], does that mean I should get banned for 7 days?

Hmmm... There seems to be a bug; the message only appears when clicking edit from review.

But otherwise, I can't edit this question, even when going to it from the homepage.

  • 8
    So in other words, whether you can suggest edits should depend on the ratio of rejected to accepted (or total), rather than some fixed number. – Jeff Mercado May 15 '11 at 21:14
  • @JeffM Exactly. – Mateen Ulhaq May 15 '11 at 21:18
  • 10
    Or return (u.AcceptedEdits > u.RejectedEdits * 5); That way you don't have that nasty return true or return false for a boolean function. – George Stocker May 16 '11 at 16:53
  • @George This is more other-languages friendly, although, I must admit, that option hadn't occurred to me. – Mateen Ulhaq May 16 '11 at 16:59
  • 1
    @muntoo languages that don't treat boolean conditions as a first class type make me cry. Which languages are you referring to? – George Stocker May 16 '11 at 17:00
  • 3
    @George No idea, but I meant it to be "pseudocode" (in a way). – Mateen Ulhaq May 16 '11 at 17:01
  • (Also, 7 days is a long time to learn some small point that I didn't quite gather!) – Francisco Corrales Morales Jan 24 '14 at 22:59
  • 1
    Where can I view the reasons my edits were rejected? – Daniel Springer Nov 15 '15 at 20:31

I just amended it to take into account your accepts.

When deciding on whether we should ban or not, we now look at your last 7 days of activity.

If (rejects - (approvals / 3)) >= 5, you will be auto-banned.

Note that "rejects" is the count of rejections made by human users/moderators only, rejections made by the Community bot as a result of a conflict are ignored.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    is this with order of operations – Anish Gupta Apr 10 '12 at 15:30
  • 2
    @AnishGupta (rejects - (approvals / 3)) > 5. In other words, rejects are three times as sensitive as approvals. – Mateen Ulhaq Apr 21 '12 at 4:51
  • 6
    Looking at the last X days of activity has a simple problem: I have 1000 accepted edits. I go on vacation for a week, then when I return, some uninformed mods reject my 5 edits from the past hour. Now I'm banned. Please instead look at the last X edits. – Dan Dascalescu Oct 7 '12 at 5:17
  • 2
    Agree immensely with Dan Dascalescu. Seem's like it this should be weighted more based on a longer trend of activity. Granted I'm a noob on editing clearly (and an offender) but a week long ban is quite a nuisance when you never get a chance to stop and say oops better be careful I'm on thin ice, I'll stop and wait a minute. – UpAndAdam May 1 '13 at 19:35
  • 15
    @DanDascalescu If it looks only at the last X edits, then there is no way for the block to ever expire. – Boann Feb 25 '14 at 22:08
  • 1
    Just for clarification here, is an approval vs rejection defined as each reviewer's action of marking approve / reject on a suggestion, or as a suggestion itself being rejected (e.g., from receiving 3 rejects and 1 accept)? – Taylor Edmiston Aug 27 '17 at 19:19

I'm not sure I'm for this. While I do appreciate that someone is cleaning up posts that need it (the 50 approved edits), I wonder at the quality of those edits if > 5 were rejected.

I like that once you hit a decent number of rejects, the system says "hey, slow down". I don't like the idea that once a user spams a huge number of correct spelling changes they could also spam a bunch of poor edits as well.

| improve this answer | |
  • 9
    Everyone with enough edits gets some rejected. It's like the interview anti-loop – Nicole May 16 '11 at 17:46
  • 2
    @Renesis It's okay to have a bad edit every now and then, but if you cluster up a whole bunch of bad edits at once, that's rather annoying to deal with, I would imagine. It's something of a good reason for a single user to not queue up several dozen edits at once. – Grace Note May 16 '11 at 17:57
  • 2
    @GraceNote Then perhaps a rate limiter should be put in place before they send all of those edits? – UpAndAdam May 1 '13 at 19:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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