-9
$\begingroup$

Just now I came across this question:

Proving that $\lim\limits_{x\to 0}\frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=L$ implies $\lim\limits_{r\to 0}\frac {\int_R f(ry)h(y)\,dy}{\int_R g(ry)h(y)dy}=L$

If it has not been corrected since I saw it, it was unclear what was being asked. I was about to flag and downvote, when I saw people had answered. However, I could not make sense of the question. Then I saw the edits and I found that someone had edited the question and removed what was actually asked in the question and the Edit was approved!

Then I read that any user with 2k reputation can approve edits. In the light of such blunders, could we consider to increase this limit on who can approve edits?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I believe the someone was the OP. I rolled back the edit. Maybe it was a mistake (trying to improve the title). $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Aug 21 '13 at 7:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Vishal The asker is the owner of the post, so he/she can edit the post without it needing to pass through approval. Also, I think it's best to be hesitant to rollback an edit by the post owner (but in this case IMO it was appropriate). $\endgroup$ – Ataraxia Aug 21 '13 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ Although the example could be better, the problem is still a valid one. However, I do not think the solution should be increasing the limit. I have seen users with so-much-rep-they-could-have-a-bath-in-it approve obviously incorrect edits. Perhaps imposing a minimum time for which you need to be looking at the page would be better? But I am not sure I would endorse that... $\endgroup$ – user1729 Aug 21 '13 at 19:56
3
$\begingroup$

In this case, no edits were suggested to the post. In the revision history, when an edit is suggested as opposed to being made by a user, it would say "suggested X hours ago" rather than "edited X hours ago", with suggested being a link to the suggestion details. No such entry exists here and the offending revision, number 3, was made by the question author. I don't think any of us are considering restrictions on reputation for editing one's own posts, so I think we can pass over the specifics of this case and instead focus on the general privilege level.

The reputation for approving edits, 2000, matches the reputation needed to edit questions and answers without needing to suggest them. The intended presentation is that a user who is trusted enough to make edits on their own, is also capable of proper analysis of suggested edits by newer users. Unless we believe that we need to raise the overall editing privilege level, to which I haven't seen a large need to reduce the number of active editors on this site, I don't think raising the suggested edit approval privilege level would do a large benefit to this site.

I will note that your moderators have the ability to temporarily revoke the ability of a user to review suggested edits (more specifically, from all review queues on the site), which they may use if a user has a demonstratedly poor history of approving bad edits and/or rejecting quality edits.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Was there not some scheme which "tested" to see if checkers were actually checking? It put forward some obviously incorrect edits into the review queue for people to check and if they were approved the checker got a warning. If they failed a few of these mysterious spot-checks then they'd have their edit-checking privileges revoked. Am I just making this up? If not, what happened to this cunning plan? $\endgroup$ – user1729 Aug 21 '13 at 20:02
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729 We have a system for audits on the review queue, and failing them will eventually result in temporarily and automatically barring the user from further activity in the review queues without moderator intervention. These do apply to suggested edits, but this is not currently enabled on Math. If you guys want it enabled, though, you could start a Meta discussion to see how everyone feels about it. $\endgroup$ – Grace Note Aug 21 '13 at 20:22
  • $\begingroup$ @GraceNote Wow, I thought (/was hoping) that was already in operation! By the way, is there any kind of data about how well the audit system works? $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Aug 22 '13 at 0:31
  • $\begingroup$ @rschwieb We don't appear to have hard stats, but what info we have notes that it catches a lot of people who do fast and/or sloppy reviews on the sites where it is enabled, allowing for both automatic action and data for moderators to review for manual action. It's not a guaranteed tool, but it does do the job it is set to do. I'd say that if the site either has a prevalent problem or considers that it is likely to have a prevalent problem in this domain, it is worth looking into getting this implemented. $\endgroup$ – Grace Note Aug 23 '13 at 13:09
  • $\begingroup$ @GraceNote : Thanks for the suggestion: that topic is now open $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Aug 23 '13 at 13:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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