Has allowing edit approvals on the mobile app been considered? I rarely use SE on my computer when I have free time (I'm usually working on something), so I rarely ever go through the edit approval queue. I wouldn't be surprised if that's not uncommon.   If I could do approvals on the app though, I could do a few while waiting for the bus, or while in the bathroom (might as well multitask).  I know I can go in through the website, but it's not very mobile/skinny screen friendly (and this is on a Note 4).
21277
I know there are some similar posts on adding review queues to the mobile web page. However, this is regarding the Stack Exchange Android app. I really would like to review posts and edits from the Android app, however this isn't included in the app yet. I'm not sure how it would be implemented; maybe there could be a button or something for review. Could we please see this?
3805
I downvoted an answer 17 seconds after it was posted, and left. I came back 17 minutes later (what a coincidence) and the post had been edited, but the system didn't let me undo my vote. I believe it was because the edits took place during the grace period and weren't registered. Is that so? I wish I were able to remove my downvote.
18949
I suggest a preview on the mobile page. For questions, answers and edits to both, like on the desktop page.  I messed up formatting often enough to be annoyed that there is no preview on the mobile page and I'm surprised that noone suggested it before (at least I didn't find anything).  If it's too performance heavy to have a live preview update after every change in the text box, there could be a preview button next to the save button which leads to a page with only the preview, a back button and a save button (and the title bar and so on).
18575
A nice user suggested  to . The edit, though very good and desirable, was rejected. I do not understand the reasons, and I did not find a way to contact those people who rejected it. What can I do to re-approve the edit?
31259
I don't need further approvers for my edits on Stack&nbsp;Overflow, but if I approve another person's edit (which is often the edit I wanted to make), the edit needs to wait for more approvers.  Can it be changed so that if someone who can make edits without further approvers, approves an edit, it doesn't need further approvers ether?    It appears that in the interest of better quality reviews, you have to at least notionally improve the edit as an extra step. Is there a way this could be more obvious as I might not be the only one who didn't know this?
77503
On Friday, I joined the  on a PC in order to . The Stack Exchange app was open on my phone already at this point, and I did not exit it.  Later on, I got a notification on my phone about having received an answer. It was a good one! When I tried to upvote the answer using the Android app, though, I wasn't allowed to: it said I hadn't joined the site, apparently not having caught up with the fact I had done so a couple of hours beforehand.  I apologise for the  in these screenshots. :) I plugged it in to charge minutes later, I promise!        When I said I wanted to join, though, I couldn't, unsurprisingly, on account of already having done so:        I closed the app entirely and reopened it, and then the app was happy that I was a member of Anime &amp; Manga. But it wasn't updated whilst the app was running.  The app should probably get informed of this. (Though this may be low priority due to not occurring all that often.)  This occurred on the Android App v1.0.51 on a HTC One running Android 4.4.3.
102522
I was wondering if anyone else thought it might be a good idea to add an 'edited' section in the votes tab, containing only the questions/answers which have been edited since the user cast their vote?  I tend to go through my downvotes and un-downvote/upvote if an improvement has been made, but currently the only way I can do this is to go through all the questions/answers in the downvotes tab one by one, which is a very time-consuming process (especially as a lot of the time an edit hasn't been made - but of course I have no way of knowing this beforehand).  It may also be useful for checking upvotes you've made - sometimes you can upvote an answer, come back 10 minutes later and an edit has dramatically changed the answer to the point where it's wrong and you wish to un-upvote.   Of course, in this case you can simply un-upvote (if the edit was made after the grace period that is) but again, this involves the user coming back to check every time, which is time-consuming if you upvote often.   I think a tab (it could maybe have two sub-sections - one for upvotes and one for downvotes) showing all questions/answers edited after you voted on them could be useful.   What do you guys think?
101450
There are numerous posts on meta about editing questions with    Thank you. Thanks in advance Thank you, Sean Please help me!! im such a noob sorry for takin ur time   and many of them seem to conflict each other.  In my opinion, these edits are not too minor, even if that is the only thing wrong with the post. We shouldn't have a conditional policy "If there's nothing else worth editing, it's better to leave it alone" because then it sets an example to new users that it is OK to add such lines to their posts, and propagates confusion about what edits to allow and reject. I do agree if the post needs help in other areas, then simply removing "thanks" is too minor.  There seems to be a lot of confusion about whether these edits are acceptable, because I am continually rejected when making such edits. Of course, I edit the rest of the post if it needs it, but if the post is otherwise acceptable in its current form, then that is the only edit I make.  There needs to be some concrete and clear answer as to when these edits are acceptable.   See also:   My conflicting and confused experiences:           Note also: There are even scripts implemented to get rid of this garbage, but they are not perfect, and editors should be able to finish the job.
83665
I'm currently a >20K user, with the  badge on Super&nbsp;User (in short, I don't actually have any reason to edit, other than an error of some sort bugging me). I just did a one character edit (bad geek, no cookie) on  - primarily because I recall this happening before.  As I understand it, this is a minor edit and should have been automatically rejected. It's however an accepted edit.  Did the edit get counted as a legitimate 7-8 character edit, or is there something else at play here?
23543
Related, but subtly different, proposals (they were created before the edit for the masses changes):       StackOverflow guidelines encourage users to correct typos, and I often do. However a new feature has now sprang up, which allow users who do not have sufficient reputation to edit on their own to propose an edit and have it reviewed. In order not to be spammy (I guess) there is also a restriction: they must at least edit 6 characters in the post.  This, however, prevent the correction of simple typography/spelling errors by those same low-reputation users (which I am on other stack exchange sites)... and the simple way to get around this is to pad the questions with whitespaces.  Now, this work-around is fair and all... but really unsatisfying: if the goal of the 6 characters limit is to prevent minor editions, then it fails utterly because of this "whitespace" bug.  My proposal is therefore:  Creating a new threshold for minor-edits of posts  The current edit treshold is at 2000 points; minor edits (those under that 6 characters count) could be allowed from as low as 500 points.   This would reduce the "noise" in the edits to approve. This would remove this annoying "warning" for users who only wish to improve things   Of course the user whose post has been edited should be notified as for a "regular" edit (unless it's community wiki ?)  I have no strong opinion as to bumping those minorly edited posts.
81034
Spoiler text can't be made visible on a touch screen.  This was already pointed out ( as well as ).  However, that was marked as  by providing the ability to see spoiler text in the mobile version of the site.  (SE seems to be using the same definition of "mobile" as Facebook does: a little phone device.  These are not the only devices that are mobile!).  This is not a good solution.  If I have a large-screen touch device (an iPad, an Android tablet (although this  and there are only about 10 of them anyway), a Windows 8 touch-only device, a Kindle Fire, a TouchPad, etc) then I don't want to use the "mobile" version of SE - it looks like crap on a large screen.  Please provide a way to unspoiler text on the real StackExchange sites.
27455
The Android app shouldn't offer the "edit" option for comments after the 5 minute window.  Currently, the app will give you the menu, allow you to click through and edit it, only to give you a "write_failed" error after submitting. For non-mods, who have a five-minute edit window, it makes no sense to offer the option in the first place.  Edit: Additionally, if you try to discard the edit, the app crashes.  Update:
30750
When you have less than 2K rep and your edit goes in a queue, you are usually allowed to revise your edit while it is being reviewed, by clicking the edit button again on the question page. However, when on mobile SE sites, the edit button disappears when you have submitted an edit for review.    Editing  by  into the question: It seems that the cause of this is when the mobile site hides the edit link (when there is a pending edit), it doesn't check who is making the edit, which means that it hides it for your own as well as other's edits.
116558
I know this , but obviously there's still something that keeps this from being implemented/fixed.  I am a pretty active editor on Stack&nbsp;Overflow. In fact, I do edit a lot more questions than I answer. I have the Strunk-and-White badge, and if that one would stack I would have it several times by now. I am pretty high-rep — in short: I know what I'm doing.  Still.  When a question has been edited by someone whose edit needs approval, I cannot "instant-approve" his edit. Why on earth should another user be needed to approve my decision?  I know, if I go to "improve", I can overwrite the suggested edit. But that's not what I want. Especially if the edit is good, why should I take credit for it?  If I click "approve" instead, the system doesn't even let me "improve" the edit anymore. Seriously, this makes no sense at all.
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).
20179
Can we add functionality to the mobile site to view the page in the SE iOS app? It could be through  or a link at the bottom where the download link is.        I really don't care which, but right now there's just no way to do it.
81093
I came upon a question where I wanted to make an edit, but I wasn't sure if it would change the original meaning of the question - as I did not know enough about the subject material to be sure.   I could wait for another user to come around and make the edit, but perhaps they wouldn't notice the problem that I wanted to edit. I could also suggest the edit in the comments, but it is such a minor nitpick of grammar that I seemed like a waste of a comment.   Of course, I can't just let a minor grammatical mistake go unnoticed.   So my suggestion is to allow an editor to mark an edit to instead be suggested to the author for approval, if the author believes it does not sufficiently alter the meaning of the question. It would pop up under their usual notification area to approve or reject a suggested edit.   This is different than the 5k/mod suggested edits version in that it would be from a user who could have edited the question, but still seeks the approval of the original poster.