Timeline for Editing tag wiki excerpt after partial review did not invalidate original votes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Aug 9, 2016 at 3:15 | comment | added | Scott - Слава Україні | The same thing happens with ordinary suggested edits. (1) Low-rep (<2K) user suggests an edit to a question or an answer; (2) high-rep user (>2K) votes to approve or reject (or, as in this case, one of each); (3) original low-rep user edits the post again; and (4) vote(s) are not reset. As far as I know, there is no record of what the first voter saw and voted on. This (arguably) makes sense if the second edit is just a tweak of the first, but, apparently, there is no check for how significant the second edit is. | |
| Aug 8, 2016 at 15:24 | comment | added | random Mod | As an aside it looks like a tag that needs to be deleted based on the many interpretations of its use | |
| Aug 7, 2016 at 9:03 | comment | added | fixer1234 | I agree that your "expected result" is how it ought to work, and the "actual result" is a poor process flow. Also, if it is revised in response to feedback, it would make sense to allow the person who rejected it to retract, which doesn't happen. It would also benefit the process to let reviewers improve on wiki edits, like other edits The current process incentivizes lower standards. Something is better than nothing, so the review process encourages accepting whatever people are willing to submit, perhaps thinking fixes and improvements can be done in a later edit. | |
| Aug 7, 2016 at 7:32 | history | edited | ADTC | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Aug 7, 2016 at 7:25 | history | asked | ADTC | CC BY-SA 3.0 |