I'll pose this one as a question for an open discussion because the issue really bothers me:   Shouldn't there be an appeal process for (wrongly) rejected edits?  First I have to give you some background for context: Almost all of my reputation score on SO comes from answering questions related to Bootstrap 4. Also, according to SO, I'm currently in the top 5% of folks who answer questions on that particular topic. In other words, I actually know a few things in regards to this particular topic.   Now, I have recently made an edit to an old question concerning this particular topic, Bootstrap 4 (i.e. my area of expertise). I'll link to that at the bottom because I want to keep the question and discussion general here.   My edit was rejected by 2 individuals who clearly have NO knowledge in regards to Bootstrap 4. But that's not even the most annoying part. The most annoying part are the justifications they have given for their rejection. Those justifications are completely and utterly 100% WRONG!   More context:   I as a guy who is in the top 5% of folks answering Bootstrap 4 related questions initially saw that old questions and didn't know what it actually meant (based on its title). So, I clicked the question because I wanted to find out what the asker actually meant. I then read the actual question. Nothing changed, the question was still unclear at that point. I then looked at the comments. And it was only then where I saw a clarification comment from the asker!   In the first comment to that question, someone asks: What does "multiple items carousel" mean?   That's exactly the question I would have asked because to me (someone who is in the top 5% answering Bootstrap 4 questions and actually KNOWS stuff about this subject) the asker's question was totally unclear. "multiple items carousel" is a term I have never heard before and at best this term/description is very ambiguous. Even to someone like me who is dealing with Bootstrap 4 and Bootstrap 4 related questions every single day.   It is, therefore, highly advisable, helpful and recommended to add the necessary clarification at least to the question's title and possibly also to the text of the question which is exactly what I did.   So, here are the issues I'd like to start a discussion about:   1) People reviewing edits often don't have any expertise on the topic at hand.   2) It seems that if a question has comments attached to it, those comments are NOT shown to the individuals reviewing the edits! WHY? Those comments were essential for a context in this case and would have shown even to someone who is inexperienced with Bootstrap 4 that my edit was in fact, relevant and correct.   3) There is no appeal process for cases of that nature.   So, my question is, once again:   Shouldn't there be an appeal process for (wrongly) rejected edits?  I'd like this to be an open, general discussion about this issue but for those mods who are interested to look up my particular case, it's my edit to .  P.S.  I had promised to mods to never post anything on meta ever again but have now decided to make an exception for this issue because it really bothers me when someone accuses me of wrongdoings when it is objectively NOT the case.
1827
When clicking &quot;edit&quot; I see:  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.  Like:     Likewise, when I am not logged in, clicking &quot;improve this question&quot; or &quot;improve this answer&quot; shows:  You are not . Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is .  And when I click 'Save', I get:  Thanks for submitting an edit. It is only visible to you until it's been approved by trusted community members  Like:     Who can suggest an edit? Where do suggested edits go? Who can vote on a suggested edit? How do suggested edits get reviewed? Can I earn reputation? What about abuse or bad edits? Sometimes the Community user approves or rejects my edit. Why is that? When can I not suggest an edit? Is there a minimum change requirement for a suggested edit? How do I check my suggested edit history? I disagree with the reasons why my suggested edit was rejected. What can I do? How do I know whether there are edits waiting for review? Someone suggested an edit to my own post, and the reviewers took the wrong action. What can I do? Are tag wikis included in this scheme? What do the &quot;Improve Edit&quot; and &quot;Reject and Edit&quot; buttons do? Why are apparently valid links to rejected edits resulting in 404 errors?   For more information about editing, see &quot;&quot; in the .
110399
Just ran across , which was bumped by  for having been unanswered. However, it was answered by Jeff (no upvotes), along with a  tag. I gave an upvote so that it wouldn't be bumped again. But, Community should ignore those posts, since they have an official answer.  Possible exceptions, as pointed out by random, are the statuses planned and deferred.  Statuses bydesign, completed and declined should be ignored by Community.
48622
How was an anonymous user able to suggest ? (Warning: it has an offensive edit summary, which has been edited out in the screenshot below.) It doesn't seem to change anything, not even when viewing the Markdown source:    IIRC, if you suggest an edit and then immediately edit it again, but if the new edit doesn't meet the 6 character minimum it won't be accepted by the system. I just tried (while logged out) to retag this question and undo that in the grace period, but I get a message , as it should.
80908
When new users edit a post, the review is posted to a review queue and other reputable users can review the edit and choose to approve or reject it. However, I feel that a lot of people do it pretty quickly.    to . He was fixing broken links in the answer, and as soon as I saw it I knew it would have been a good edit. However, only one reviewer found so, and three others rejected it. I ended up manually doing the edit, and poor Onato didn't get any credit for it (in fact, he got an undeserved 'rejected' for it).  The point I want to bring is that, first and foremost, the person who wrote the answer probably knows best if an edit is acceptable or not. Could there be a time frame where the author of the answer (or question) can overturn a review decision?    EDIT: one more  was rejected by overeager reviewers as well. I absolutely disagree with the notion that the community knows better. The community repeatedly proves that it only wants Internet points.    EDIT: I told a commenter to fix something himself in one of my posts, but . I went back and applied the changes myself. It's not credited to him and his stats got a rejected edit now (which really should be an approved edit). The reason ("This edit is incorrect or an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post") is blatantly wrong and shows once more that the community has much less insight into edit quality than the people who wrote the answers in the first place. It's true that the UI didn't make it easy for them, but those guys clearly didn't read the comment thread; I did, because as the author, I was notified.    EDIT: This time around, a user fixed a blatant (though small) mistake in one of my accepted answers. One hour later, another, unrelated 10k user , even though it had been approved by the community. I went back to undo his undo.  This goes on again to show that an active user is the best judge for the quality of an edit, and that since I can have the last word on edits on my own posts, I should be allowed to retroactively overturn a community edit vote and accordingly credit the person who proposed the change.    EDIT I wrote a  years ago. Some guy found it and tried to fix it but the community thought that it wasn't worth it. I think that the changes are great and once more I'll integrate them by myself into my post. Unfortunately for this user, he won't be credited for it. I still don't understand why I can't have a binding vote on edits on my posts.
82940
I went to a Late Answers review queue that had four items in it and started reviewing the first one by editing it into shape rather heavily.   By the time I was done, someone else had reviewed the same post simply by upvoting it, so I only got a "Next" button, not an "I'm done" button. My edit still counted as an edit; but no longer as a review.  Worse still, the other three items were gone from the review queue as well. Curious, I checked the review tab in the profile of the user who had snatched the first review out from under me. Sure enough, he also "reviewed" the other three items, all within a minute, without even fixing obvious typos, simply by upvoting. I had to go through his review list and review every single post again.   Except, of course, my reviews didn't count as reviews anymore. My review count went up by zero. His went up by four&nbsp;&#8212; for fixing exactly nothing in posts that absolutely could use fixing. To add insult to injury, this was on a site where collecting four review points is incredibly hard because the review queues there are pretty much empty 24/7. (Edit: and now that that is also true of SO, we are seeing the same behavior here.)   So what we get are:   Subpar answers that do not get fixed and get upvoted instead and disappear from the radar of the people who are actually capable of and willing to fix them.  Fastest-gun-in-the-West, single-click, faux reviews that count towards rare Gold badges, while elaborate, actual reviews don't.   This is severely broken.  And I can't think of an easy solution that wouldn't break other things.    Simply not letting upvotes count as reviews is not an option (it discourages upvotes not just on crap, but across the board; and some posts really are fine as is and deserve nothing but an upvote). Simply always counting a review as a review, even if someone else is faster to review the same post, introduces review-point inflation and only solves the problem for one faux review, but not for several in a row, as in the scenario above. Simply letting several people review the same item, like with suggested edits, is not really "simply" anymore, and introduces more review-point inflation still. Likewise, allowing people to reject or override other people's reviews as not substantial enough opens all kinds of cans of worms.   And so on and so forth. I really can't think of anything Solomonic. But perhaps someone else can.
112103
If a question receives n (say, 5) rollbacks within a hour, raise a moderator flag and lock the post.  Alternatively, if an edit by a new user (say, no edit approving privs) drops the post quality score of a post "too much" (say, by more than 100), it must go through the edit approval process.
64109
First this question is not a dupe of:    Though the upvotes show it's an issue: I'm not seeing things.  My question concerns specifically someone with 20K+ rep being eligible for the "moderator" status (you could vote for him on SO as a moderator, which I didn't).  I've seen post where that person changed the entire question so that it fits an answer "because then it adds value". The logic behind the edit being "so it gets referenced in Google (and is searchable directly in SO) and if someone search for the question that fits the answer, then we have an answer".  I don't disagree that from that standpoint it seems to make some sense.  But the problem is that it makes the original poster very uncomfortable: why would such a poster come back to SO if it's to see his question completely distorted?  Also, why would people answering then getting zero votes or downvoted be motivated to answer more questions when they know the question may get completely modified?  In another case, and this has been the subject of a post here on meta that generated some heat, same 20K+ rep person simply didn't understand the question. So he modified it to a question where he portrayed the user as making something illegal or questionable and the user got downvoted to oblivion. The user left SO and went ballistic on Usenet and on blogs about SO.  This is not good in my opinion because, sure, you completely rewrite questions to make it fit your own view of the world but it's detrimental to existing SO users.  Both to the original poster who asked the question and to people answering the correct question (with the correct meaning, before the crazy edit took place completely changing the question) and to commenters, which often go crazy in comments because they dislike the edit.  That user never edited one of my question, but I was reading a weird series of 20 comments and understood that obviously there was an issue at work and when I saw the name of the editor I thought "oh no, it's him once again".  So my question is simple: what do I do when I think that a user with 20K+ rep is acting in an unacceptable manner, frequently entering into arguments in comments with various SO users and often re-inventing questions?  In other words: what has been put in place in the SO platform to prevent people at the very top (being eligible for meta-moderator status, I don't know how you call this) from subverting the platform?  We could push the logic a bit further: why not write random question, random answers, random upvotes and then after a few days rewrite the question so that it matches the answer with the most vote?  Isn't there really a very serious issue here?  Once again, it's obviously not the first time the subject comes up, the problem is so obvious that it has prompted question here like "mark a user as not being able to edit your question" that I linked to above and it also prompted several blog entries criticizing SO.  I don't dare to flag his comments defending his own crazy edits because I'm thinking "maybe he's meta-moderator now, so he'll see my flag and start editing my own questions to make me look a stupid poster".  It's even worse than that: right now I'm thinking "but why ask question as to how to deal with this and make stackexchange a better platform, because my post may be edited anyway to completely distort my question?".  That is how bad it is. I found it (and it's just an opinion) a bit disgusting.  To make a bad analogy, it's a bit like when you give to much power to someone who turns out to be a bad cop. This is an issue. It has to be dealt with. But it is very difficult to deal with a bad cop once he's near the top of its sphere of influence.
36704
I'd like to have this   by animuson confirmed or refuted:      This is unverified, but I remember reading somewhere that an edit can only bump a question into the Reopen Votes queue once. Further edits would not continue bumping it into review. I could not find a source for that, though.   I could not find a source, either. There is an  of how edits send questions into Reopen queue, but it does not address this point.    My reason for asking: I often see  questions with minor formatting edits (made by someone other than OP) in the Reopen queue. The reviewers decide to Leave Closed, since the reason for closure still applies. Suppose that  OP edits the question later; will the edit send it to be reviewed again? If not, this means that minor  edits to an on-hold question reduce the chance of the question being reopened.
90634
I'm blocked from reviewing for some time, but I'm not blocked from editing. I would like to edit someone's question, but there is another suggested edit review pending. I can't approve it because of the review ban, but also I can't do any other edit as when I click "edit" it redirects me to approve the edit. Is that expected or this is a bug?
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.
35766
I don't know how I did manage to do it.  I just ... Oh wait, did I do it actually? I actually simply approved it! You can see it . Apparently, I made no changes myself.  But now I'm struggling to understand how exactly was I able to do it, because in 79% of cases I am greeted with this message:        and in another 20%, this faked "improve" goes through (while I don't change completely anything) and I can haz a binding approval vote :D  And in other 1%,  it when I clicked improve (now I know ).  So it's definitely a bug, but I can't find the exact way of reproing.  Note: earlier there was actually a bug which allowed me to approve an edit by clicking improve and submitting with no changes, then it was fixed and for some time the message I've shown above stopped me constantly, and now there is another bug
108542
This  (and connected links) give good advice on the sorts of things to do.  But they do not say what the criteria for lifting of an answer ban is.  I'm assuming there is some algorithm involving rep, time maybe, maybe certain activities?   It also doesn't say whether one is notified or one just has to use trial and error.  I have no idea of the effort involved in getting ban lifted and whether it is worth while or not.
36185
Please have a look at . When the question was asked by the OP, it had a scope related problem in the code snippet posted in it. 2 answers were posted for that question. But after the answers were posted, a friend of mine from Stack Overflow, edited the question(not sure with what intention) in such a way that the bug in the code was gone(it actually self answered the question). Please have a look at the question revision history, where I've rolled back the question to the original state, which has the problem in place.  My question is that, should such a practice be allowed/encouraged that an edit to a question renders all the answers posted for that question, totally irrelevant? As anybody who comes to have a look at the question later, will be highly confused as to why a question was asked without any problem and there were so many answers posted to it(not everybody cares to go through the revision history)? I happened to notice that, but not everybody would notice it.
72429
A few days ago, someone posted a question about updating dataset. After some questions/comments to his question, it didn't receive answers (and no up/down vote).  1 or 2 days later, the user posted the  (he just reformulated the question, posted less code and with bad formatting, the code doesn't compile due to missing ' for comments), so it would be harder to get answer for this question . The question received a +1.   I flagged this question as a duplicate of the previous and asked user to edit the previous instead of creating a new one, but he deleted the previous.  I do not blame the asker, I understand he wanted to keep it's 5 points rep  :) And it seems he solved his problem later.  But now the flag is marked with eventinvalidated because it is impossible now to accept or reject it?   Since my flag is no longer appropriate, I am just curious about what could happen to this flag?
29261
For the first time I failed an audit in review, but I sure don't think I should have.  I saw the edit wasn't that good, so I hit the improve button to clean things up and got this message:     This was an audit, designed to see if you were paying attention. You didn't pass. This edit vandalizes the post. Don't improve it – Reject it   Sure, I could have rejected it, but some of those can just be improved, especially if the original post needed editing.  Maybe SO could keep track of my successful improves and see that I know what I'm doing, and let me hit the improve button and not fail me for the audit.  EDIT:  I realized after it happened to me again today, that my workflow is to see that there is an error, and instead of checking the whole post, I go into edit mode, and then completely go over the post editing it as needed.  Since SO doesn't seem to want to adapt to that kind of workflow, I'll unfortunately have to change mine, or just do less.  It really slows things down to have to completely go over a post twice (kind of like the inbox zero concept, try to deal with things immediately).
7503
I feel like there's a problem with Stack Overflow, as the number of people prowling it increases.  Each question's answers are sorted by descending score and then by descending time of posting. This means that if a person sits down and answers a question in a long, thorough way, going through every nook and cranny, once they post their answer, it will already be one of about seven different ones, some of which have already been upvoted. This wouldn't be a problem if those answers were as thorough as the one this guy's posting, but they usually aren't. Some of them are downright wrong, some aren't even answers to the question asked because their poster didn't bother to read the question all the way through.  This causes a problem I like to call Stack Overflow's Fastest Gun in the West Problem. I've come to a point where I'd rather just send a short, simple, correct explanation, than to go and do some proper research, write a whole blog post about it or even make sure the code I post even compiles, just so it will be noticed, as opposed to the incorrect ones.  I'm sure I'm not the only one doing this and that it despairs many people from even trying to answer questions.  I've long ago learned to try to always raise a problem with a solution in hand, rather than just say "This is a problem, handle it," so my question, after this long tirade, is:     How do you think this can be changed? What would you change in Stack Overflow to make this problem go away without hurting the site?   I promise to vote on answers I like, even if it takes you a long while to post them. :)
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".