Edit - Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Rev

16

There's been some (though not a ton) of conversation internally about whether reputation is the best signal that someone should have certain privileges. E.g. Someone can have 1k rep and still be fully capable of editing posts without review but someone with 10k rep may not have ever edited a single post - so may not know how to do it well. I would put your question in the same bucket. We want to ensure that reviewers understand how to review in general but they also need to be aware of the norms/expectations of the specific site (what is close-worthy and what isn't).
– Catija
Commented May 5, 2021 at 15:15
7

So, we've generally resisted saying "you have 3k rep on Site A, so that should be enough, so you can review everywhere" - because of that second part - the site norms/expectations... but, again... someone doesn't need 3k to know those and having 3k doesn't absolutely mean that you're aware of them. The question then becomes... so... what do we use instead that's not a pain in the butt to validate. And... that's hard. For edits it's easy - say, you've had 90% of your suggested edits approved and you've submitted 50, so we trust you now!
– Catija
Commented May 5, 2021 at 15:18
2

I'm not sure it's so easy for review, though... review is on/off - there's flags for some queues (LQP, Close/reopen) but there are extenuating circumstances that could make flags disputed (such as the post being edited in the interim)... we could do some sort of training that, people who completed it would be allowed - but that's new and big and complex (I'd assume) so might be really slow to build, though it might make review, overall better - we'd also have to make it highly customizable per-site, which makes it even harder, since we're talking about 170 sites!
– Catija
Commented May 5, 2021 at 15:19
7

As a note, I'm (personally) less concerned about low accept rate - I'm not a big proponent of thinking too hard about accepted answers because the asker isn't always the best judge of the value of an answer, though that can depend on the site. What I am concerned about is the low voting - experts on the site should be there to review/validate the posts on the sites and should be voting to indicate quality and correctness (or lack thereof).
– Catija
Commented May 5, 2021 at 15:31
@Catija, if I change the phrase "low acceptance rate" to "low voting/acceptance rate" it even more strongly underscores my point, I think
– Chris Davies
Commented May 5, 2021 at 17:14
1

@Catija for review training maybe you can give <3K people 100 review audits, and if they pass most of them they get the privilege? The audit system is already in place on SO and could presumably be implemented on other sites without needing to build something "new and big and complex".
– Marijn
Commented May 5, 2021 at 20:24
@Marijn my edits are taking ~ 2 days to get through the review queue on SU. Surely that shouldn't be normal?
– Chris Davies
Commented May 5, 2021 at 20:46
3

@roaima Considering the number of people complaining that edits are blocked entirely because the queue is full, it's... something? :D As someone who got my first rep on SO through edits, I understand - even three years ago it was taking 8 hours up to a couple of days to get through review. The one thing about suggested edits, though, is that at least they don't expire, so the major blocker is just that - if the queue gets too full and blocks suggestions. (Ah, I see now you were talking about SU, not SO - but I think there's a similar cause - not a ton of reviewers).
– Catija
Commented May 5, 2021 at 23:14
2

@Marijn You'd need to overhaul the audit system first. A significant number of audits are bad.
– TylerH
Commented May 13, 2021 at 14:21

Add a comment |

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
indent code by 4 spaces
backtick escapes `like _so_`
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »