I've noticed that the message above appears sometimes when I choose "Improve" in the suggested edit review queue, as .  Given that the Community approval and my edit have the same time stamp, I believe this is an automated process.  , the suggest edit had 3 approve votes (by real users) prior to my edit, so the Community notice did not appear.  Could someone please clarify what is going on?
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?
34750
Have a look at  which was suggested by . He suggested  tag. I approved because I can see he is an SE employee. So I have two doubts:   Why doesn't he have some required privileges? (as he is suggesting instead of direct editing) If he doesn't have required privileges, how can a normal user suggest an edit for  tags?   Is there any special case here? Just curious to know.
111740
At the moment normal users do not get notified if someone suggests an edit on their own question or answer. I'm not even sure if they can see these suggestions if the do not have the corresponding privilege.  I think users should get notified about pending suggested edits on their own posts and also be able to see and accept or reject the suggestion independent from their own reputation.
45961
I like the addition of the "Improve" button in the review edits page. However, sometimes I only think of improving a post after choosing to accept/reject. Currently there is no way to do this other than waiting for the edit to be accepted/rejected and when there are &lt;5 edits in the queue this can take a while.  Is there a workaround for this, or can this be added?
757
I see the  on the user page.  It seems to edit posts sometimes.  What is it? And why has it downvoted over 1800 times? See also:
57790
There was an earlier suggestion to  to prevent errant clicks.  I would suggest a similar thing (knowing the previous didn't get implemented for close votes) in the Suggested Edits queue.  The current order of buttons there is:  Approve Reject Improve Skip  Already twice today, I managed to mis-click on Approve when intending to Reject.  Having no confirmation or subsequent reason selection to make, my errant approvals were saved.  To remedy this, a better order might be:  Approve Improve Skip Reject   My (over?)thinking here is that:   Approve and Reject are really unlikely to be confused in a wild click A mis-click between Approve &amp; Improve will do no harm if taken to the Improve screen,  and not a huge amount harm if Approved when intending to Improve. Between Improve &amp; Skip an errant Improve can be backed out of  An errant Skip just kicks it down the road... Between Skip &amp; Reject, an errant click on Reject gives can be backed out of on the reject reason An errant click on Skip just kicks your intended rejection down the road to someone else.   To maintain consistency with all the other queues, Skip probably needs to remain the right-most button. This doesn't deviate much from what is above in effectiveness. What's most important is to separate the Approve and Reject actions, approvals have no secondary screen.  Approve Improve Reject Skip
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.
88006
Today,  to one of . Before I got to see the notification, the edit already was rejected by other people (three rejections, one approval).  But the edit was actually a good one (like most edit proposals to my post I get to see) – a correction of syntax errors, so I would have definitively approved it.  (The suggested edit didn't change the main point of the answer, which was about the API to use, but it made the code example of my answer actually usable. I didn't compile it when writing my answer, it was late at the evening.)  So I did edit my post to include the proposed change, so the proposal is not fully lost. But the proposer only got the negative feedback from the rejection, and none of the reputation bonus an accepted edit gives.  My suggestion: Could there be added a way a post author can accept edits which were already rejected by other users?  Also, is there some way I can contact the rejectors and teach them not to reject good edits?
52204
I got this message today while trying to accept my answer on my own question.  Why must I wait this time, if I am sure that the answer I answered is the right one, just want to understand the point of view?  I faced that just today on Super user and didn't get this message before.
120913
When reviewing the First Posts (and Late Answers) review queue, after you suggest an edit, you're back in the review queue and the I'm Done button is activated. So far, so good, but when I realize I want to edit something else as well (I often forget the tags), I can click the 'edit' link again. When I'm done improving my suggested edit, I'm suddenly outside the review queue.    This does not happen if you have enough reputation (2k) to edit posts straight away; then you always stay in the review queue.
97179
I am not sure if this is a bug or a design error, but I came across this issue on Robotics. I assume that the same code is employed across the various SE sites, so I am posting my question here. I submitted an answer to  at 16:26.    I then suggested an edit to the question at 17:03. However, it was not until 20 hours later, at 13:03, that the edit was approved, so I appear to have missed out on the &quot;Explainer&quot; badge, as the edit should be done within 12 hours.    I don't know the reason for the delay, as I do not have a low approval rating:    I'm not bothered about missing out on the badge, nor am I criticising the reviewers - after all, we all do this in our free time. However, it does seem that the algorithm for the badge relies on the approval time, in lieu of the submit time, which does not seem to be correct, as the badge then becomes dependant upon the reviewer's availability/responsiveness, rather than upon the actions of the answerer/editor.  TL;DR Should the badge also check if the edit was caused by a suggested edit and, in those cases, look at the time it was suggested rather than the time it was eventually approved?
38618
Now that I've reached 2k on Stack Overflow, I get access to the "Suggested Edits" review queue.  Although I only have 20 edits per day, the "suggested edit awaiting" icon in the top bar is always there and it bothers me a lot!  My suggestion is to apply one of three solutions:   Remove the suggested edits icon when we reach the maximum (50) edits Remove the Highlight (orange) on the suggested edits Remove the suggested edits part when we click on it   What do you think?
46248
When reviewing suggested edits, I ran across . It took a post originally in French and Google Translated it to English. I approved it, as it gave the post a chance to survive, and it properly attributed that the post had been translated. It appears that two others did the same.  But should have I? It probably falls under a 'radical change', right?
51851
Issue 1: I find it a bit irritating that when I click the Improve button and further edit it, even if I mark it as helpful, only Community takes the credit for the approval. I know the topic itself will contain the link to the suggested edit, but my activity history only says that I made an edit, and not approved a suggested edit. The same holds true for marking one as unhelpful. The activity history should say I rejected an edit, and then made an additional edit. I know it's not often, but sometimes I do try to go back to a suggested edit I've rejected, but when I improved and rejected, it's not traceable for me as it doesn't show in my history or in the question's revision history. So if I don't remember what user suggested it, it's lost to me.  This issue also plagues the  which are awarded for approving and rejecting suggested edits, which essentially you have done, you're just not receiving credit for it. I suggest that when I mark an edit as helpful or not helpful, both me and Community be listed as the approvers or rejecters, unless another user is already listed in the appropriate place.  Update: Here is  of the confusion this causes.  Update 2: Also, when improving a post and marking it as "not helpful", it would be nice to be able to  along with it.    Issue 2: Expanding off the idea that users need more notice for suggested edits that get rejected, the activity history page is much too useless when it comes to listing the suggested edits a user has made. Literally all it does is list them. A user still has to click through to each one in order to find out if it was approved or rejected, or even if it's still pending. Take, for example, this screen shot of the suggested edit history:    Is it really necessary to say I suggested a suggested edit? Really? Of course I suggested it, it's a suggested edit. This isn't !  A good way to fix this would be to change the second "suggested" word into one of: pending, approved, or rejected. This would be a quick way to tell which edits have been approved or rejected and which ones are still pending. Users would be able to target out rejected edits and review them for the reasons. Something like this:
5688
More and more frequently in the review queues, I am spending time either fixing a post or considering whether an edit is valid, etc, only to make changes and have them denied/not count because someone else has blindly hit the approve button in the meantime.  My proposal is for the system to "lock" a post in the review queue once it has been presented to someone for review.  Do not let anyone else (in the review queue) do anything with it until it is released by the last user it was presented to (or a certain amount of time has elapsed).    By "lock" I mean that it won't show up in anyone elses list until released.  I did NOT mean that it would be in multiple queues and be unactionable in some of them.  This would fit well as the queues only present one at a time anyway.  This will allow people trying to make good decisions the time to do it and prevent someone else from making that effort a waste of time.  As support, look to some of the published reasoning behind the auto-question ban.  A large portion of it is that bad questions waste the time of the community.  Taking the time to ensure you are making a good decision in the /review queue only to have it not count because someone was badge-whoring and clicking the approve button as fast as they could also wastes the users time... arguably the more (for lack of a better way to put it) valuable user who is willing to invest some time and thought into making the site better.
107406
I was reviewing this one:    Though I may admit that this edit was minor... There are two reviewers that classifies that edit as introducing spam, when it's not.  I felt like it was reviewer abuse. I wanted to flag that, but did not find the button.  What is the common way to report that ?  EDIT: well I'm wrong the edit was to be considered spam. Thanks for the answer and downvotes. However you don't answer "what is the common way to report review abuse" ? Simply meta ? The answer can satisfy me, but at least tell it.
62173
I only see this on sites where I don't have edit privileges, and only where there have been multiple revisions:        What exactly is this supposed to do?  Intuitively, I would expect it to change the text in the box to what it was at that revision, but it doesn't. And, if that's it, why only where I need to suggest edits?