As a reviewer :     User is editing too much post today. Obviously not interested in content but in reputation   Not exactly a valid rejection reason in general, but , and while a few were ok, many merely placed keywords in backticks (which btw should not be done for non-code, e.g. for the reasons listed ) and should have been rejected (a shockingly large amount of these were however approved). This suggestion behaviour is most certainly not what the system is intended for, so I wonder if there is a limit on suggestions in place? Note I'm not referring to the   but to a general limit of, say, 20 suggestions per day.  As many of you have noted, reviewers actually accepting such crappy suggestions are a problem. But they are not the problem, but rather a consequence. Limiting the amount of edit suggestions1 limits the source of all evil bad edits, while the serious reviewers are rather the victims who loose the battle against are slower than robo-reviewers and thus more likely to reject a suggestion when it has already been approved. We should educate the editors to "make it count", which to my knowledge is already the desired behaviour, but not in a vague "minimum character count" - one missing backtick edited in may severely improve a post, while a second one to emphasize a non-code keyword is bad.    1 And as discussed in comments, 20/day is not necessarily a good measure, something like max. 5 unapproved edits in the last 24 hours where approval a) make another edit available and b) increases that limit with time might be better - the suggestion here is about the consideration of such a limit, not about its implementation details
22334
We need a hard rate limit on suggested edits, to limit the damage someone can do with blasting the review queue with minor edit suggestions.  Case in point:  peppered the site with a whopping 133 tag-only edit suggestions in 2 hours and 15 minutes. That's one edit every minute on average, but towards the end he was entering a new suggestion every 20 seconds. He only stopped because a  drew enough rejections to have him banned from entering more.  If there was a limit to the number of suggested edits you can enter in a time period we could have stopped this guy earlier. No &lt;2k user needs to edit hundreds of tags across that many questions in 2 hours time.  Considerations   There are cases where a retag drive or tag burninate justifies editing a larger number of posts, but I'd be fine if such tasks were limited to people with 2k+ reputation. A retag or burninate job requires a minimal engagement with the community to know when they are justified anyway. The suggested edit review process, by itself, was clearly not enough to stop this barrage. It cannot be seen as a rate limiting measure, at least not as a sufficiently efficient one.  The vast majority of the edits made in the above example were too minor, leaving spelling, grammar and formatting mistakes in the post untouched. The user was going too fast to pay attention to such details anyway. Yet this user has 98 approved edit suggestions, but all but 6 or 7 I'd have rejected as too minor, so the review process itself is broken.   What should be limited   The number of review votes reviewers have is already limited; I burned through 20 reviews in short order just reviewing the suggestions from just this one user. Certainly the number of unreviewed suggestions should be limited to let reviewers catch up with a user like this. I'd say having 20 outstanding suggested edits pending review is plenty. Suggested edits should be made with some consideration; we don't want minor edits, so if you are suggesting more than 20 in an hour (that's 1 every 3 minutes) you are not improving posts anymore, you are gaming the system to gain reputation.
39609
Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of complaints about users making suggested edits en masse whose quality was at least questionable.  Let an example of a low-quality edit be the addition of the web-frameworks tag to dozens of questions about the PHP web framework Laravel. No one is ever going to use it in a search, but Laravel is a framework, right?  (If you disagree about this being a low-quality edit, please  bear with me anyway - my point here is that the system through which such conflicts could be settled is broken.)   Examples          This is a toxic situation guaranteed to create strife because -   The new user is happy to have found a way to participate and earn some rep; they may be genuinely feeling that they are improving the site. The reviewers greenlighting most of their suggestions confirms them in their belief.   The reviewers usually see only one edit - and it's easy to see how they might go, "meh, this isn't a terribly useful edit, but hey, maybe it helps someone, and it's a new user. No point discouraging them."   The veteran users who check out the editor see dozens of what they perceive as low-quality edits, usually ignoring anything else that should be fixed in the post. To the veterans, the new user is systematically looking for excuses to make their pointless edits, creating a giant mess in order to  gain some rep - a mess they have to clean up, while there are no consequences for the editor, who gets to keep their ill-gotten points. While a bad question or answer can be downvoted - usually leading to a change of behaviour eventually - the edit system looks like it's wide open for gaming.   So tensions are high, and when there's dialog it can be angry. I'm not saying either side is completely right. I'm completely prepared to believe that many of these edits are in good faith, etc. But it's a mess because it's frustrating people. As said, there are no consequences for bad-faith mass editing; apart from commenting on some random post, there is no way to communicate with an editor. The outcome of a moderator flag is very much uncertain.  The absence of a clear set of rules means there's plenty of room for heated arguments.    Something needs to change here.  Either   We need super clear rules on what makes a good tag edit Tag-only edits should be allowed only for 2k+ users, or they should not gain 2 reputation points for &lt;2k users The possible 1000 rep gain for suggested edits needs to be rate-limited (say, 200 per month) (this is my favourite!) The possible 1000 rep gain for suggested edits needs to be lowered, say to 500 or 250 Rollbacks of suggested edits should result in annulment of the 2 points gained (this is terrible) There should be a system to vote on edits (yes, that's been suggested before) There should be a defined and officially sanctioned pathway, and ruleset, for moderator flags cast about these users    ... or something else. But something needs to give.
34850
It seems that when a user’s suggested edit gets rejected they can simply re-suggest it, and given the  of affairs of the suggested review queue the suggested edit is quite likely to be approved (or if not this time, then it will almost certainly be approved if they are persistent).    As an example I saw the following  which was rejected, very shortly after I saw almost the  suggested again, this time it got two approvals.  Should there perhaps be some sort of delay until a user can suggest an edit after their suggestion was rejected for the same post? Perhaps a check can be made how large of a difference there is between the two suggestions (though I’m not sure it’s worth doing just for this, and a delay is probably sufficient)?   I do understand that a user should be able to re-suggest an edit after it was rejected, since after all perhaps they made a better suggestion after seeing that it was rejected, however in cases like these I don’t think that is what is happening.  I did see  saying that after some rejected edits a user cannot suggest any further edits until a week has passed, but as this is clearly not happening here I guess that may have changed since that post.
45038
Looks like flagging has been affected by releases today. Are these intended effects?   Higher daily limits (appear doubled for me, flagging of posts limit also doubled).  Explained by Shog9 below. Soft comment deletion  - e.g. for "accept rate" obsolete comments - it does in fact work, but the immediate feedback is gone.  This is fixed now. Has the throttling rate changed?  Seems possible to repeated flag without waiting 5 seconds.  If it was broken, it isn't anymore. Old soft deletions that were neither categorised as "helpful" or "declined" have all become "helpful".   If limits have been updated, can we get the new formula published? Not changed, as confirmed by Shog9.
3898
I think I found a bug on Stack Overflow, would like to have feedback if it is, so you can eventually fix it!  If I go on my personal profile in SO on the activity tab and select the suggestion button (in order to see all edits I have suggested) I see 19 entries:    However, if I select one of the suggested edits and follow the link I see in my Editor Stats that I actually have 20 edit suggestions, and so it looks as if one went lost.    What's going on?  Which stat is correct? (Don't know if it's of any use but I remember doing 20...)  EDIT:  new proof of bug added, if I go on my review section in the lateral tab I'll see this recapitulation, which goes against editor stats
123221
Take a look at . There were two &quot;Approve&quot; marks, but then  rejected it, and that was it. The suggestion was rejected with a 1-2 reject-approve ratio. From Community's , it states that &quot;[it is] not really a person,&quot; and is actually &quot;a background process&quot; that does the following:  Randomly poke old unanswered questions every hour so they get some attention Own community questions and answers so nobody gets unnecessary reputation from them Own downvotes on spam/evil posts that get permanently deleted Own suggested edits from anonymous users  None of those mention that it works the review queue. In addition, the right side of the  states that &quot;Stack Overflow is moderated by []&quot; - NOT an automated bot. If the automated bot can do review on its own, why would we be reviewing manually?  So, all together, I have a few small questions:  Is the ability to make an decision on behalf of everyone moderator-only or Community-only? Why is a computer allowed to make decisions for us? Why does Community's  not mention that it can do that? Is Community really only software, or is there some interaction behind the scenes?
98328
TL;DR  I am requesting that a button be added to the Suggested Edit Review Queue interface to reject an edit and flag the post that the edit was made on.  Background  I started working through the Suggested Review Queue recently, and I've noticed that there are often edits made on posts that should just be deleted or closed. I feel that time spent "polishing turds" is wasted, both for the editor and edit reviewers. I currently handle these by rejecting the edit, visiting the original post, and flagging the question myself.  This three-step process occurs regularly enough that I think it should be made easier.  Therefore, I am requesting that a button be added to the Suggested Edit Review Queue toolbar for flagging posts. I also suggest that this button reject the edit by default, with a message similar to the following:     This edit was made on a post that should have been flagged for deletion or closing.   There is a related discussion on Meta Stack Overflow .  Expected Impact  Pros     Reviewers can get through the queue a little bit faster by reducing the amount of navigation required to help maintain site quality   Having the option more easily accessible will encourage reviewers to consider deleting posts that are not up to site quality standards     Cons   If edit reviewers find it easier to flag posts, the number of posts getting sent into the Low Quality Post and Close Vote queues may increase   My response: We as a community seem to have already decided that the cost of review effort is worth the benefit of having a cleaner site. I believe that this feature request coincides with that sentiment. Additionally, the user that suggested the edit will see this new reason for why their edit was rejected, which will discourage them from making further edits on unsalvageable posts, reducing the size of the Suggested Edit Review queue.   Adding a flag option may muddle the scope of what edit reviewers are supposed to do   My response: I agree with the assertion made by  answer, which is that the purpose of edit reviews is to just the quality of the edit, not the quality of the overall post. However, I am not trying to imply that edit reviewers should necessarily begin judging the original post. But if, in the course of judging the review, it becomes obvious that the whole post is garbage, then I think flagging the post is a reasonable action and we should encourage that behavior.  Side Note I do not have 3k reputation on any site, so I don't know exactly how the close vote and delete vote interfaces work. For users over 3k, I would suggest that the "Reject and Flag Original Post" button be replaced with a "Reject and Vote to Close Original Post" or "Reject and Vote to Delete Original Post" button, or something similar.  Conclusion  I acknowledge that flagging/deleting/closing original posts is beyond the scope of the Suggested Edit Review Queue, but I think it is a useful behavior that we should encourage in edit reviewers by making it easier.
38678
Today, on C.SE, I reviewed some 'Late Answers' and First Posts.  I was not even near my daily vote limit.  And yet, I was given a message that said      comments disabled on deleted / locked posts / reviews   It seems I was not the only one either:   The workaround, of course, was simply to go back and provide the guidance - but was this a design or a bug?  If it is design, why would you want to discourage the feedback? Especially with first posts, there is often a high percentage of 'didn't read the FAQ' usage, which can best be addressed by gently providing guidance. (e.g. "Unfortunately, this doesn't answer the question" or "This reads like a comment" or "This really isn't on-topic here - can I suggest you checkout our [faq]" etc...)  Timely first post guidance goes a long way towards making good users.   If it was a bug, was other functionality silently rolled out?
19099
At the moment the reviewers are split into two camps, one is accepting minor edits, the others don't. But first, let's start with some basics:     too minor      This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.   And now we'll look at . In my opinion this is way too minor to be approved, but the . Though, .  From an editors point of view, it's a little bit confusing, because some people are accepting those edits, some don't...so it's pure luck based on who sees it first if it is accepted or not. In theory an editor could even do the same edit multiple times until it is accepted.  That's a very big hole of inconsistency there, which should be plugged. Either the rejection reason should be refined and clearer outlined what is "too minor" or, if those edits are valid, it should be removed altogether (because in that case minor edits are already caught by the system).
41659
Somewhat similar to , but rather more limited: when Rejecting an edit, not only the count of custom rejection reasons but the actual text of the reasons should be shown, IMO. Just now I  on SO that tidied some code in a trivially correct and substantially superior way because it looked perfectly legitimate and I couldn't understand why anyone would bother with a custom rejection reason. As it turned out, it was code in a question, of course.  In this case, the rejection reason correctly identified the problem, and had I seen it, I would have been reminded of that aspect I had neglected to check.
7226
I was on the Suggested Edit's review tab today, and noticed that this user (take a look at today's ), was putting in hundreds of edits adding the C# tag to questions that didn't really need it. He got over 275 reputation today.   To me, this looked like spamming the edit system to get reputation. I started rejecting them as too minor, with also a custom message telling him this.   Here's one example:  Another:  Another:    And about 20-30 more. I hit my review cap for the day.  Is this valid editing behavior, and, if not, would a mod please get involved?  UPDATE: I've seen a couple of other meta questions about this in the last day, but it looks like the spike in gaming the system is passed.
89310
I must get up to 5 or 6 of my daily Suggested Edits that have the following as Edit Summary:     Fix bad grammer [sic]   Maybe I'm just a spelling/grammar/syntax Nazi, but it makes me angry that people who are supposedly improving the grammar of a post can't write 3 words without making a blatant error.  Is it OK to not even give a glance to the actual changes and reject the edit solely based on badly spelled Edit Summary?
90334
I have noticed a significant number of suggested edits that attempt to fix code, or change the original meaning of someone else's post.    Is this really a good idea?    I've been on StackOverflow awhile, and among the editors who have sufficient reputation to edit without approval, I've never seen anyone modify the technical content or meaning of someone else's post.   I would consider obvious syntax and spelling errors OK to change, but I have seen many suggested edits that change the meaning of the code that was posted, or add things to the code that have nothing to do with the original question. A good example of this would be adding parameters to a SQL command, when the question was not asking about SQL injection.
95845
As  and described in :      [The team is] planning to open the floodgates and allow everybody to submit content edits on posts   Am I the only one who sees this undesirable? In fact, the more I think about it the more I think it has the possibility to be a really bad idea.   I think that, to provide good edits, you must have a good idea of how the site works. I am very afraid that if you give everyone the power to edit, we'll get a lot of low quality edits. The /review link was just added to help weed out low quality questions and answers... if there's a need for such a facility for questions and answers, why do we believe that edits will be much different?  I understand that these edits will have to be approved by the community:     2 Users with N reputation will have to approve each edit. There may be a capped reputation incentive (at the moment we are thinking you can get up to 1000 points 2 at a time for good edits) – waffles♦ yesterday   But I think that this potentially doubles the work for people (like myself) who like to edit. Now, instead of just doing the edits ourselves, we have to review someone else's edits and it now takes two users to approve the edit another user made, so what could previously have been done with one user now takes three.  There's another consequence to this:     @Robert ... this helps fight information rot... so many old questions need TLC. pending edit will block further edits and be actionable inline. – waffles♦ 23 hours ago   So, if I understand that correctly, that means that if some low-rep user makes a bad edit, A higher rep user can't correct it until a second higher rep user concurs the first edit was bad?  Or even if a low rep user makes a small, good edit, a higher rep user can't make a second edit until the first one is approved? I foresee all sorts of problems here.  As it stands, reaching 2,000 reputation is a great milestone on the sites. It means you have proven yourself and, most likely, you know the flow of the sites and what's good and what needs work. Congratulations, you now have the power to edit and make these sites you clearly love a better place. I think that giving editing powers to everyone greatly diminishes the privilege of being able to edit at 2k, and I think that's a bad thing.  Am I the only one who feels this way?  Is the new "everyone can edit" feature set in stone or do we, the community, have any say?
54672
has 5 pages of 1 character edits (including an edit to one of my posts), apparently in a massive attempt to earn the Copy Editor badge.  Should Copy Editor, etc., ignore 1 character whitespace-only edits?    If we still want to count minor edits (which may be useful), could we at least detect edit abuse via some secret algorithm? ~20+ one character whitespace-only edits in the course of an hour should at least raise a flag of some sort.    If whitespace character are too hard to count, can we at least assume that 20 non-tag edits in 20 minutes (less than a minute per edit) is a good signal of abuse? The specific algorithm should be secret, obviously, but I think these sorts of edit abuses shouldn't be too difficult to detect.
61575
It's a shame to type out an entire question, press post and then:     Sorry, you are only allowed to ask 50 questions in a 30 day period   Could you put some sort of notice on the page itself before submitting it to let you know the question won't be going through?  Or perhaps tell me how many questions I've asked in the last 30 days if it's >0?  Edit  This is not a complaint or statement about the limit, just a request that the error handling be done in a slightly better way to save people a lot of time.
64998
Problem User submits a  which should be rejected (at least 3 reasons pop-up straight away...) You happen to come across this and you want to do the right thing, which is reject the suggested edit. So you hit Reject button and select your reason. Oops...  So then you refresh the page and click the more link to see the reviewers and stats  Right, I am not saying this is not entirely possible to come across 11/35/14 suggested edits which really improved the post... but how likely is this to happen?  UPDATE aimed at 's suggestion  which should be clear based on  Let Me Flag Currently, there isn't any way to actually flag these guys for moderators attention. I know I can go to their profiles/ activity tabs/ comments and leave a comment explaining how to act in the suggested edits queue... I can write a custom message under one of their comments and explain the problem to the mod...well, I am not going to do that.. These are painful ways of achieving something that should be exposed right there at the review stage. There needs to be another/simpler way to tell our mods and other already establish and trusted users that there are some potential robo-reviewers which need handling (possibly a ban1)  The mechanics A suggested review flag [SRV] flag's meta could be as follows (obviously just an idea)  Reviewer Link to the review Optional: reason for flagging Date/time Flagger  Each user would have a counter against his profile stored in the back end. How many times his action has been flagged, and how many times mods(10K+ possibly as well) have approved such a flag (robo-alert). This number would not be exposed to users, so nobody but the diamond mods know the raw numbers/count. If the system detects, let's say, 10 approved flags the reviewer gets an automatic ban(to be discussed). I think we could add those types of flags to the  and let those 10K+ help handle those types of flags. Any ideas are welcome as it's quite difficult for one person to invent and think throughout the entire system. Consequences Pros  slowly disposing of robo-reviewers  in a long run: improve the quality of suggested edits being approved  users awareness -&gt; &quot;my actions are somehow analyzed further&quot;   could educate users a bit more of What do I approve/reject and consequences for being a robo-reviewer.   Cons  Increased load of moderation required  Implementation of such system (developer time, etc)   1 - I am not the one to judge when a ban is necessary. It would up to the mods when someone actually deserves a ban. It could also be dependent on the amount of approved flags a reviewer has received