If a suggested edit is overall good but introduces some questionable formatting, I improve it to remove the bad changes. If it's approved before then, the edit is less substantiative, because it changes less things.  This is annoying; can it be changed to always consider edits more substantial than the edits they're improving? (Not when there's been an edit in between, just when it's been approved first.)    This is doubly annoying when the edit is stopped because the title was already edited. I know I'm improving the title, because I clicked the "Edit" button in the suggested edit review panel.
122486
I was reviewing a  and decided that while the edit was incorrect, there were things to improve about the post. So I clicked “Improve” and set about my business. When I tried to submit my edit, I got the following error message, telling me that the post had been edited in the meantime by the suggester:  User already edited the body of this post; your edit must be more substantive to override the current edit.  When I tried later on a tag wiki, I got the altogether unhelpful indication that “an error has occurred”, and again no way to do anything but cancel and lose my work. But refreshing the page brought me to the suggested edit page, showing the suggested edit as approved, with no trace of my editing. (Fortunately I'd saved my text on the side!) With a , I was marked as having reviewed the suggestion, with the indication “edit” — but there was otherwise no trace of my alleged edit. So, if you improve a suggested edit and it gets approved in the meantime, you get into a situation where  there is no link to the post; if you go back, you get to what you were doing before and lose your edit; if you reload the page as instructed, you lose your edit.  The bug here is that unless you take extra precautions such as copy-pasting your edit into an external editor, you will lose your work. Expected behavior Unlike normal edit conflicts, an edit made to a suggested edit is guaranteed to be a derivative of the suggested edit - so if that edit was approved and then an &quot;improved&quot; version is submitted, that &quot;improvement&quot; edit should be applied to the post (the helpful status indicated by the checkbox shouldn't affect anything though). When two different reviewers both opt to improve a suggested edit, a conflict is unavoidable - this should be resolved based on the size of the edit, as is the normal behavior.
110201
Possible Duplicate:          I've developed  which allows you to view the status of your edit suggestion at a glance. (Accepted / Rejected or not yet processed.)  Since it generates  to StackOverflow because it checks the status of each edit suggestion at page (re)load, I intend to cache the status of the edit suggestion.  However, since I am not eligible to approve edits yet, I don't know if the approval / rejection of an edit can be undone. Are edit approvals / rejects permanent?  TL;DR: Can the status of an edit change after it's been approved / rejected?  Note: Although I have searched for a couple of minutes, I haven't found any similar question. However, because this question may have been asked in a different form it might be possible somebody did already ask this. If so, can you please share a link to the relevant answer?
17332
I've noticed that the reviewer stats in the review queue contain awkward uses of :        has approved $count edit suggestions and rejected $count edit suggestions and improved $count edit suggestions    This has always irked me but I never bothered to complain about it publicly til now. The wording should be changed to       has approved $count edit suggestions, rejected $count edit suggestions and improved $count edit suggestions    Or one of the better suggestions from   The discussion about whether there should be a  in the sentence is a separate one entirely, but I think it's unnatural and unreadable to string the ands together like they are.
18537
So... from a while back, I posted a question dealing with implementing a certain feature within an iPad app (no specifics, see  for question), and I noticed that there was an approved edit by a user named Zephyer who posted something about Windows 7.  After a face-palm, I re-edited my question to bring it back in line with my query.  So, my question then is: What the heck do we do with the occasional stupid/irrelevant edit?  I know it doesn't happen often, but there's got to be something other than just re-editing I can do!    EDIT: Excellent suggestions.  To clarify two things though:   This post is quite old.  I was a new user at the time, unaware of the rollback feature if it even existed at the time of it's posting. I just wanted to know if there was some way to get the attention of the editor.  It doesn't need to be a downvote or a flag, just a message, or an indication.
32723
A user  which added useful information to one of my answers. However, because it was a substantial edit, it was rejected by the reviewers. That's fine. However, as the owner of the post I would like to be able to overrule their decision after reviewing the edit myself (as I was encouraged to do by the notification in my inbox).  Currently, I had to open the edit suggestion in a different tab and manually copy and paste over the changes from the markdown diff to apply the changes. This seems laborious and doesn't give credit to the user who suggested the edit.  Request:  I would like a button on the suggested edit page, visible to the owner of the post, which applies the suggested changes, preferably just as if it had been accepted by the reviewers (i.e. giving credit to the editor and the +2 reputation for editing, if applicable).  Related discussions: (note that since this is a feature request, these are not duplicates)
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.
69389
I know  is actually trying to be helpful by formatting code, but it appears that the first line of code is always indented incorrectly (maybe it's just my OCD). After about three of their edited posts corrections, which somehow always got approved, I ended up going through just the first page of approved edits this user made, and corrected the same problem.   I don't think it would be correct to add a comment directed at the editor asking them to correct this issue. I don't see any way to flag a user for moderator review, or have the moderator contact them. I don't see a method to flag an edit for review. and I don't see any other way to contact this user to help them correct the problem and save a lot of people extra work.   What is the solution to this?
82157
It happened many times that I submit an Edit Suggestion and immediately after that I see the post has already been edited by another guy (usually higher-rep) and my edit has been rejected by either Community or reviewers.  Why there is no mechanism to prevent simultaneous edits and avoid unfair rejection?   This is my first attempt to edit the post:   As you can see it got rejected by community because another user submitted an edit. And immediately after that I wanted to re-edit my edit which turned to this (Actually it rolled back all the edits):
9070
I stumbled upon the following issue.  starts out with "Dear friends", as can be seen in the image below (and hopefully by following the link).    However, when I go to edit the question for some clean-up, I don't see this in the source of the question:    My first guess was that a suggested edit is hanging around somewhere, but I don't see one. So, what's going on? Am I the only one seeing this? Bug? Cache? (New feature? Are we all friends now? ;) )
59462
Possible Duplicate:    Sometimes I get an edit that greatly improves a question or answer I have submitted.  I'd like to acknowledge an edit like this, so that readers can know that the revision was approved of by the OP (me!). I was thinking of comments on edit, or a checkbox noting that OP vouches for the edit.  Sometimes I would like to add a comment to the question or answer, but those don't make a lot of sense in that context. Any suggestions about the best way to do this?  Consider this a feature request, as it seems useful to know that a particular edit was endorsed/vetted by the OP.
89990
The suggested edit screen includes both the suggested edit, and the reason for the edit:        When you click to improve the edit, that comment is left as-is and hidden at the bottom of the post above the save edit button:        At the moment, when I Improve a Suggested Edit, the Comment text for that Edit is retained (though editable). It's unlikely that the comment would still apply (e.g. Suggester added a tag and Approver corrected a typo), so I would rather have the field blank.  Also, it's better to have a blank Comment than an incorrect one... many people don't bother changing the original Comment.  So that box should be blank like this instead:
19452
When reviewing possibly low quality posts you sometimes see OK answers, except that they're wrong. From the review interface you can't downvote so you can only comment or edit, and editing isn't really an option when the intended answer is wrong.  Once you've commented or upped an existing comment, should we then click Looks Good because there's nothing wrong with the answer, except that it's wrong, or Not Sure so that the answer is reviewed again (and again)?
44520
Currently, the threshold for approving or rejecting a suggested edit is , whichever is reached first.  This means that, when  or just  edits get approved, it's often with a vote count of something like 1 reject / 2 approve (or 2 reject / 3 approve on SO).  Typically, these edits manage to get one or two very quick approve votes from, um, , after which it's very hard for the slower and more careful reviewers to accumulate enough votes to catch up before the edit is approved.  Conversely, when a valid edit gets wrongly rejected, this very rarely happens unanimously either.  More often, you'll see something like 3 votes to reject / 2 to approve, but that single last vote, no matter how well or poorly considered, is enough to tip the scales.  So I'd like to propose a simple change to the approval / rejection threshold:        Suggested edits should be approved when S = (# of approve votes &minus; # or reject votes) &ge; N, where N = 3 on SO and N = 2 on other sites.   Similarly, suggested edits should be rejected when S &le; &minus;N.      No, this change is not going to magically fix all the problems with suggested edit review.  But I believe that it would be a simple and conservative improvement over the current behavior:   For obviously good or bad edits that get approved / rejected unanimously, this suggestion would not change the current behavior in any way. For edits that get one mistaken or careless reject / approve vote (as happens pretty often), an extra approve / reject vote would be required to balance it.  This would slightly slow the review process for such edits, but not excessively so.  Further, I would argue that these are precisely the kind of edits that deserve that little bit of extra attention to make sure the eventual decision will be correct. Edits that are truly controversial, and for which the reviewer community is nearly exactly 50&ndash;50 split between voting to approve and reject, might stay in the review queue significantly longer (maybe twice as long on average) than under the current system.  However, this is a trade-off for the increased likelihood that the eventual decision will actually reflect the majority opinion among reviewers, rather than mere random chance.  In any case, even if reviewers are exactly 50&ndash;50 split, the  under the proposed scheme is only N&sup2;, i.e. 4 votes for other sites and 9 votes for SO.  Even a slight bias in the voting will further reduce this.  Besides, the longer the suggestion remains in the queue, the more likely it gets that someone will short-circuit the process by casting a binding vote (mod / post owner) or by choosing to improve the edit.     Ps. If it is felt that there's an issue with , a simple further chance to address that could be to make each reject vote count as, say, &minus;2 rather than just &minus;1 approval votes (and change the rejection threshold to S &le; &minus;2 &times; N to compensate).  This still wouldn't help with bad edits getting unanimously approved (which isn't really something that can be fixed, except maybe by slugster's cattle prod), but it would mean that each reject vote would now effectively cancel out two approve votes, titlting the balance for disputed edit suggestions in favor of rejection and making it easier for more careful reviewers to counter the "robo-approvers".
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?
59430
The current format of showing review history works fine without bug. But, we should intend to change the format of that page to add some more precise.  We are showing the reviewer name in the review history. I think there is no need of showing that, as the reviewer is seeing his/her own history.    We should remove that and get some more space for other reasonable details. We can also have titles for the details showing on like post, action, time, etc. Provided screenshot is for suggested edit review history. We can have unique format changes for each review type.
52760
Contradicting Instructions While going through the suggested edits review queue, one sometimes stumbles upon partially useful edits like . Trying to follow the instructions listed in the descriptions doesn't lead to a conclusive answer. Considering our example:   Approve edits that clearly improve the post ↳ No, not *clearly* Improve Edit when you can make additional improvements to the post ↳ I most definitively can Reject and Edit to replace an ineffective edit with your own substantive changes ↳ It is ineffective in the sense that it made the post worse overall (imho) Reject edits that fail to improve the post or that make it worse ↳ Like the last option: yes Skip if you are not sure and want to go to the next suggested edit ↳ Well, yes. But that is really why I am here, asking this question   Reasoning about the remaining Choices This leaves us with three choices: Improve Edit, Reject and Edit and Reject (the last one slightly modified):  Improve Edit  + Acknowledges that some things in the edit where correct - Learning effect for author might vanish, as the improvement might get overlooked - Can't leave a custom message for edit author (except in comments, which pollutes the thread) - Doesn't trigger the system which &quot;punishes&quot; users who repeatedly have their edits rejected - Rewards the edit author with reputation for a poor edit   Reject and Edit  + Clearly shows the author that there were problems with the edit - Still can't leave a custom message explaining the problems of the original post. - One has to partially redo parts of the edit that have just been rejected, which might feel unjust to the original editor   Reject with a custom note and come back immediately to make a good Edit  + Clearly shows the author that there were problems with the edit + Possibility to leave an explanation as to what was wrong with the edit - One still has to redo parts of the edit that has just been rejected - Seems to be a weird workaround for Reject and Edit   Something else?   Each of the three options come with their distinct advantages/disadvantages making it non trivial to decide which one to pick.  Or does the answer simply depend on the quality of the edit? Like:  Improve Edit for subjectively slightly positive edits Reject and Edit (Or Reject and Edit) for subjectively slightly negative edits
106245
Now we have a nice side-by-side diff in the 'suggested edits' review pages, and as an , could something similar be made available as an option when editing a post?  It wouldn't need to be interactive - a button to get the side-by-side diff of the current state of your edit, versus the original would do.  This would be useful when shuffling lots of whitespace around - a final check that you haven't broken some embedded code.  A workaround at the moment is to submit the edit, then check the side-by-side view in the edit history.