2
$\begingroup$

... why is it that when someone else, assumedly with less than sufficient rep, edits a question and I (with sufficient rep to change the question) approve the edit, why is that not sufficient to change the goddamn question?

why does it require more approval for the edit to take?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ -1 There is no need to use profanity. The short answer is that if you edit the question/answer, then you are taking responsibility for the change and your name appears as the editor, even if the change was suggested by someone else and you simply copied it, whereas when voting to approve an edit, the edit appears under the proposer's name and not yours. $\endgroup$ – Dilip Sarwate Jan 3 '18 at 5:03
  • $\begingroup$ fine. i considered copy/pasting, but thought someone else would come along to approve it. if i am approving an edit, i am also taking responsibility for the edit. but it's not to my credit. $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Jan 3 '18 at 5:15
  • $\begingroup$ You don't get credit in terms of reputation increase for approving an edit but you do get a bronze badge the first time you do it. You don't get credit in terms of reputation increase for simply copying and pasting someone else's suggested edit (using the "Improve suggested edit" scenario) without making any changes and passing it off as your own, but you do get a bronze badge each time. Even if the suggester of the proposed edit doesn't cavil at the cavalier treatment, you don't think that such an action is a tad unethical? What is this bubble reputation that you seek so desperately? $\endgroup$ – Dilip Sarwate Jan 3 '18 at 22:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ what are you talking about, @Dilip? i am just saying that copy/pasting to instantly apply someone else's edit is both a pain in the ass, and it seems to me that if the edit was good (which is why i would approve it), that the person who thunk it up should be credited for it. but the way it is, a perfectly good edit that is recognized as such by someone who has the credential to instantly update an edit, is not effective until more people with credit approve. that's both inefficient and "just not right". $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Jan 3 '18 at 22:20
2
$\begingroup$

See this post on Meta SE, specifically the bolded piece on the fourth bullet point:

Who can vote on a suggested edit?

  • The owner of a post or a moderator may cast a binding vote to accept or reject > any modification of their post.
  • All users with the edit privilege may vote on suggested edits to posts.
  • Users with 5000 rep may vote on suggested edits to tag wikis.
  • Two accept or reject votes are required to remove the suggested edit from the queue and either apply the edit to the post or discard it. It used to be a single vote (two on SO) and later three on SO
    • If a user votes to Improve Edit or Reject and Edit, their review will dequeue the edit, as the Community user will make a review (see below).
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ but the dumb thing, Peter, is that if i were to edit the question myself, i have enough rep that my edit takes immediately, with no further approval needed. i should be able to, simply based on my own rep, approve of someone else's edit and make it take immediately. $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Dec 23 '17 at 22:48
  • $\begingroup$ @robertbristow-johnson yup, you said that in your question. I was just pointing out what the expected behavior is. That means it’s not a bug. It may not be logical, but it’s expected behavior. $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Dec 24 '17 at 0:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ illogical behavior is a bug. $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Dec 24 '17 at 2:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "illogical behavior is a bug" < but after some time, some bugs become features :) $\endgroup$ – Laurent Duval Jan 10 '18 at 18:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .