# Rating users edit reviews

Today, for the $\text{n}^{\text{th}}$ time, I gave an edit some careful consideration and accepted it only to discover that it had already been rejected. I would quite like to point out to the two people who rejected it that they were wrong - it was a valid edit!

Therefore, I would like to propose the following.

Edit reviews should be rated, as posts are. People can vote +1 if they agree with your decision to accept/reject and -1 if they disagree.

I don't think that this should affect your reputation (we should not scare people off of reviewing edits!), but if you get too low a score you should get an e-mail from a mod or something. The current auditing system favours rejecting edits, and perhaps this is why I am seeing more good edits rejected. However, the real issue is that people are not taking long enough to check. I feel that this system removes the bias inherent in the current system whilst still not scaring people off.

What think you?

• Sorry, but I still can't find the edit that you are thinking about. I looked through all the rejected edits from the last 24 hours, and I couldn't see any that should have been approved. It might help if you could track down the link. I know that there has been discussion in the past about the review of suggested edits, and it might be helpful if we had a list or wrong edit to support any change. – Thomas Mar 11 '14 at 16:05
• This is certainly unusual. Usually, it is the other way around. – Tobias Kildetoft Mar 12 '14 at 7:49

## 1 Answer

I don't think such a system is needed since we have the random test question to see if a reviewer is actually paying attention or just clicking through the posts. I have encounter reviews that test for both good and bad post so it accounts for someone just clicking accept or reject without ever looking.

I know some of the test question are horrible since there can be potentially a few ways to handle it and one may fail it by not flagging since they wanted to edit or leave a comment but nothing is perfect. However, I think it would be a good idea to put users on temporary review bans (a day or two) if they fail too many a week, month, or some other interval decided (counter resets after interval instead of just adding up since even good reviewers are victims to the test question every now and then). Additionally, it would be nice if the system then kept track of repeat offenders of the temporary bans so mods can identify problematic reviewers. I am not sure what a mod then could do about it besides warn the user or users. Unless they can ban people from reviewing.