# 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