Timeline for Removing reputation for rejected edits
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2, 2014 at 0:05 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @bjb568: The effect is not negligible if it is repeated often enough... Remember you can review edits without going through the queue if you have a link to the post... | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 16:07 | comment | added | bjb568 | @BenVoigt So it's a negligible effect? Well, at least, there should be a system for checking abuse... I think this is needlessly complex. If no rep is awarded every time, it would be like a mod task, which is fitting since it is. Like all mod tasks, there is no positive feedback, only negative: bans. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 15:30 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @bjb: They won't see the same review items. And even if they did, their reviews are spread over a larger number of editors. The funny business is the pattern where a small set of reviewers is awarding rep to a small set of editors. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 14:53 | comment | added | Luis Masuelli | I agree with this answer. If both "bounds" are troublesome, give a middle-position solution, and this answer is the one I was thinking about. Upvoted :). | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 12:56 | comment | added | Code Jockey | At the very least I really like the idea of an extra click or two beyond reject/approve, to also say "this is a worthwhile edit -- someone not only spent some time cleaning this up, they did it really well, too!", while leaving the default at no rep change (for the cases when someone just changes "I'll" to "I will" or vice versa - maybe reject, maybe approve something like that, but don't penalize them by default). I'd like a 3 position scale from 0-2 rep (0 default), with a vote of "Vandalism" that doesn't penalize instantly (not unless/until they do it several times, by banning or rep hit) | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 5:38 | comment | added | bjb568 | @BenVoigt How about a group of users in chat (for an event or something), where half the edits in the queue are from them? You go "meh, -1", "ok, 0", "great, BobbyTables is a good editor, +2", without even realizing it. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 5:06 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @bjb568: My vote may be influenced by a user's previously demonstrated level of expertise... but a particular user isn't going to be a significant fraction of my reviews, or even reviews granting rep, not the way it would be for sockpuppets. And by making the "usual" action to accept with no rep given, funny business should stand out more. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 2:02 | comment | added | bjb568 | Vote rings aren't just "this is abuse" and "these are just good happy users". Knowing a user, for example, can subconsciously introduce bias. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 16:16 | comment | added | Jonathan Drapeau | Forcing them to do one more click might dissuade some robo-reviewer to keep doing it... but I see your point. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 16:11 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @JonathanDrapeau: No, I specifically want giving rep to require more clicks than accepting with no rep. Robo-reviewers will do the minimum amount of work as always, and I don't want that minimum to include a rep award. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 15:55 | comment | added | Jonathan Drapeau |
Just have the slider be off by default, forcing reviewer to rate the edit... take that robo-reviewers!
|
|
| Jul 31, 2014 at 15:50 | history | answered | Ben Voigt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |