This question already has an answer here:

I have been paying more attention to the suggested edits pending approval area in my shiny new 10K tools, and I have noticed (just a few) very poor suggested edits.

Reputation is a rough measure of how much the community trusts you. Awarding people +2 reputation makes sense because of this. You're reputable because you suggested an edit that (at least two of) the community agrees with.

However, I think people should also be penalized for a rejected edit. Perhaps -1 reputation, or something more creative (like 5 rejected edits in a week results in -1 reputation).

In my opinion, the other side of reputation is not represented in the suggested edit process.

To me, this is similar to deciding an answer is useful (upvoting) and deciding an answer is not useful (downvoting).

Thoughts?

share|improve this question
2  
Something would kinda be nice. Every once in a while a user pops up with no idea what they're doing and submits dozens of edits, so a slap on the wrist would be useful. –  Matthew Read Sep 2 '11 at 0:30
2  
Some people with access to the 10k tools approve some bad edits too. There was this user who suggested tons of edits adding a "Thanks in advance" at the end of the question and some got approved. –  NullUserException อ_อ Sep 2 '11 at 1:58
 
@NullUserException: Wow and two people approved that edit? That's pretty crazy... –  ɹǝʞɐʇıɥʍ ʍǝɹpuɐ Sep 2 '11 at 2:00
1  
add comment

marked as duplicate by gnat, Tobias Kienzler, Hugo Dozois, Azik, Martijn Pieters Oct 7 at 13:41

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

1 Answer

up vote 20 down vote accepted

The problem with zapping every rejected edit with -1 rep is that it's likely to put people off making suggestions completely.

I believe that after a number of rejections users lose the right to make suggested edits, so the problem is kind of self-limiting already. From the FAQ:

There are strict limits enforced. If a user (anonymous or registered) submits many rejected edits they will be automatically banned from suggesting edits.

I'd put it down as one of the problems of knowing what you're doing - having to put up with seeing the actions of those who don't know what they're doing.

share|improve this answer
 
I think the banning from suggested edits is useful but it doesn't impact how reputable you appear to others on the site. –  ɹǝʞɐʇıɥʍ ʍǝɹpuɐ Sep 2 '11 at 0:43
10  
I'm not sure how discouraging people from making sucky edits is a "problem" -- it sounds more like "the exact goal". The auto-banning seems good enough though –  Michael Mrozek Sep 2 '11 at 1:10
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/104817/should-users-be-penalized-for-rejected-suggested-edits?answertab=oldest
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2013-48
49387
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:AVCQLCWU2YKNK5GDMUFIEOWZ2DIFGEPK
<urn:uuid:97a05b31-0544-4c2c-8d8a-5ddf42e044fb>
2013-12-12T23:28:43Z
198.252.206.16
sha1:VIDFEZSSWWJ4A5T65C5CUBDMJ6XFEGYL
<urn:uuid:682c5daa-6ec4-437c-a444-6c4231d30e68>
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/104817/should-users-be-penalized-for-rejected-suggested-edits?answertab=oldest
response
<urn:uuid:94ab63c3-c08f-492d-bec1-95675d17d5a9>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-33-133-15.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2013-48
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for Winter 2013
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf