Timeline for Make reviewers explain why they accept a suggested edit
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2020 at 13:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Dec 11, 2011 at 14:08 | comment | added | surfasb | A better solution would be to use case studies to educate your active users. | |
| Dec 11, 2011 at 14:05 | comment | added | surfasb | @DanielBeck: The current problem is with certain problem editors, but you are asking for a feature that is systematic. It's akin to punching your display to kill a fly on it. Then look at the cost/benefits. The manpower involved to code, test, test *2, test * 10, then deploy a feature like this versus the benefits is, IMO, low for what amounts to style and syntax. It is a situation that just requires a case by case review, a process which is unfit for a computer. The ban hammer is perfect for situations like this, because it is an extreme solution, thus cannot be applied without due diligence. | |
| Dec 11, 2011 at 10:27 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | Do you know how accepted/rejected review actions are displayed to a low-rep editor? | |
| Dec 11, 2011 at 10:20 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Expand
|
| Dec 11, 2011 at 8:55 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | @surfasb How do you determine whether someone games the system? At the moment, if you'd confront a user, they could still try to figure out a reason why the edit was somewhat useful. Additionally, we're talking about the most active high-rep users here (on pretty much all sites except SO, and even more so on all the smaller sites). I don't think it's a useful to the site to hit them with the banhammer unless there's outright vandalism, which I just don't expect to see. | |
| Dec 10, 2011 at 1:05 | comment | added | surfasb | I agree (with Richard). The suggestion sounds like feature creep. Soon, people will just game that system. And any you put up. I suggest just banning people who game the current system. That kills the motive at the source. Or just warn them of a ban. | |
| Dec 9, 2011 at 8:50 | history | answered | Richard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |