I find it amusing that as a high rep user I can edit a post without asking for approval, but if I review an edit proposed by somebody else I can't approve it finally. It still needs approval from other readers. My most recent example was here where there was an edit to the body that should have been copied to the title but wasn't. I approved the edit, but wanted to fix the title. Unfortunately, the edit was still pending, so I couldn't fix the title. Should this be fixed?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ When reviewing suggested edits, you should have the option of improving the edit. $\endgroup$
    – user642796
    Jan 17, 2014 at 5:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I do, but if I am happy with it as is, my approve vote is not sufficient to approve it. My point is that if I did the same edit myself, it would be approved without anybody else seeing it. If I approve it, it still needs other approvals. This seems inconsistent. If somebody who could make a unilateral edit approves somebody else's edit, it should be approved. $\endgroup$ Jan 17, 2014 at 5:26
  • $\begingroup$ Is your gravatar suddenly different than before? $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Jan 17, 2014 at 9:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am sure there were several discussion of this on meta.SO. By quick search I found meta.stackexchange.com/questions/180682/… and meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94581/… $\endgroup$ Jan 17, 2014 at 9:44
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila: Not that I know of. It looks the same to me, but without the December hat. $\endgroup$ Jan 20, 2014 at 5:54

2 Answers 2


I disagree that this is a bug, or even an issue.

The act of "reviewing" an edit is/can be much less time/effort consuming (if you catch my drift) than the act of making an actual edit. Approving an edit also gives +2 reputation to the user who proposed the edit.

The situations are clearly not symmetric.

Hence there exists additional check and balances (in addition to the two-user review system, also the occasional "test questions") to counteract gaming of the system.

Putting it bluntly: the system may trust you not to vandalise a post, but that doesn't mean that the system trusts you to be able to spot it when someone vandalised a post.

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I hate the "test questions". I "passed" all the tests up until now, but I certainly did not think that all of them were so clear-cut that every reasonable person has to agree that they are bad. $\endgroup$
    – Phira
    Jan 17, 2014 at 10:24
  • $\begingroup$ I was just about to add an answer of my own when I noticed your spoiler-protected hint. I think that is really a reason to require another reviewwer even after a high-rep approver. $\endgroup$ Jan 18, 2014 at 22:29

There is definitely a missing feature here. After a user has selected "approve", they should be able to change their mind and edit the post instead.

I will post this as a feature request.


You must log in to answer this question.

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