22
$\begingroup$

I was asked to check a proposed edit of a question. I rejected the edit, saying "The original question makes no sense but is at least grammatical. The proposed edit is ungrammatical and still makes no sense. I understand neither and so will not attempt an improved edit." (Actually, a terse version of this to respect the character-count limit.) When I returned this, I received a reply telling me that the proposed edit had been accepted, but inviting me to edit the post directly.

This is not the first such experience. If it happens again, I will be inclined to ignore further requests to check editing. I think it a shame, though, if the system discourages good editors and encourages bad ones.

Edit: Well, a similar thing did happen again, with the same robotic message popping back immediately. Sadly, I now think that there are better uses of my time than responding to invitations to edit questions on this site.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Sounds like robo-approvers are killing your will to review edits... $\endgroup$
    – user127096
    Commented Feb 18, 2014 at 15:44
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I wish naming and shaming (followed by hostile stalking) was a more publicly acceptable thing to do. On the other hand, if it was publicly acceptable then it would be less shameful to those being named. Or something. $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Feb 18, 2014 at 15:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user1729 This thread could have a catalog of "edits that shouldn't have been approved", linked to their review records; this way the focus is on content, but the records still include user names... $\endgroup$
    – user127096
    Commented Feb 18, 2014 at 15:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user127096 It is not the same as a full-scale harassment. Who reads meta anyway? Not me! $\endgroup$
    – user1729
    Commented Feb 18, 2014 at 15:56

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

As with many things on this site, you can flag for moderator attention:

Go to your review history, find the offending item, and flag it for the moderators indicating that you think someone is robo-approving.

The moderators will look at the flag and deal with them on a case-by-case basis.


If you think the proposed edit (that was approved) is actually too horrible, so horrible that it actually makes the question worse, you can opt to roll-back the revision.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think this will show up in the review history: the OP's review was never completed as the suggested edit was meanwhile approved. $\endgroup$
    – user642796
    Commented Feb 19, 2014 at 9:18
  • $\begingroup$ @ArthurFischer: ummm... I may have misunderstood the OP. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 19, 2014 at 9:19
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I have found the back-button on my browser will often get me back to the offending Review queue item. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Commented Feb 19, 2014 at 10:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/12787/an-unsatisfying-editing-experience
math.meta.stackexchange.com
CC-MAIN-2024-33
119824
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:LK5QZSHKNOTORNHVSK2QVOQJ6XKBA5PQ
<urn:uuid:0617b26a-9439-4c60-a92a-41240355058e>
2024-08-10T16:38:09Z
104.18.43.226
text/html
sha1:GV6IY3ONILB5X2JWH4VVIX5KFKMVFVTI
<urn:uuid:8065454b-d6c1-461d-8d7e-ea58956cea87>
https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/12787/an-unsatisfying-editing-experience
response
<urn:uuid:716275b3-2390-4e4f-bcbd-ad3c10ca6a7b>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-33
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-107
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/