Skip to main content
Ask Ubuntu

Return to Question

Text adjustments
Source Link
halfer
halfer
  • 151
  • 5

I had an edit proposed on one of my questions, and since it did not offer much in the way of improvement, I rejected it. It encouraged me to explore the editor's edit history, where I found a mix of good and bad edits. Sadly a number of the edits that were either of debatable improvement or actively harmful were approved, so I wonder if approvers need to look at Ask Ubuntu reviews more closely?

When drawing attention to problematic editing histories, I prefer not to draw attention to one particular user. Nevertheless it is unavoidable in this case, and at any rate my concern is mainly about the reviewing process rather than the user themselves. The user/revisions are here.

I am seeing these problems:

  • Edits that should be made (e.g. to fix case and spelling errors) are usually untouched
  • Bullet points are added that are not obviously necessary
  • Line breaks are added instead of paragraph breaks
  • Excessive whole-line emboldening is being added and/or paragraphs are turned into headings
  • Pre-formatting for logs was (accidentally) removed

Examples:

These have all been repaired in short order (and the last one was my question, so I rejected it). To be fair, the user is making some good edits too. What is the best approach to deal with this - tackle the reviewing or the editor? I have added some comments for the editor, but whilst they replied, I don't think I havethey took the criticism personally, and the message has not been heard.

I had an edit proposed on one of my questions, and since it did not offer much in the way of improvement, I rejected it. It encouraged me to explore the editor's edit history, where I found a mix of good and bad edits. Sadly a number of the edits that were either of debatable improvement or actively harmful were approved, so I wonder if approvers need to look at Ask Ubuntu reviews more closely?

When drawing attention to problematic editing histories, I prefer not to draw attention to one particular user. Nevertheless it is unavoidable in this case, and at any rate my concern is mainly about the reviewing process rather than the user themselves. The user/revisions are here.

I am seeing these problems:

  • Edits that should be made (e.g. to fix case and spelling errors) are usually untouched
  • Bullet points are added that are not obviously necessary
  • Line breaks are added instead of paragraph breaks
  • Excessive whole-line emboldening is being added
  • Pre-formatting for logs was (accidentally) removed

Examples:

These have all been repaired in short order (and the last one was my question, so I rejected it). To be fair, the user is making some good edits too. What is the best approach to deal with this - tackle the reviewing or the editor? I have added some comments for the editor, but whilst they replied, I don't think I have been heard.

I had an edit proposed on one of my questions, and since it did not offer much in the way of improvement, I rejected it. It encouraged me to explore the editor's edit history, where I found a mix of good and bad edits. Sadly a number of the edits that were either of debatable improvement or actively harmful were approved, so I wonder if approvers need to look at Ask Ubuntu reviews more closely?

When drawing attention to problematic editing histories, I prefer not to draw attention to one particular user. Nevertheless it is unavoidable in this case, and at any rate my concern is mainly about the reviewing process rather than the user themselves. The user/revisions are here.

I am seeing these problems:

  • Edits that should be made (e.g. to fix case and spelling errors) are usually untouched
  • Bullet points are added that are not obviously necessary
  • Line breaks are added instead of paragraph breaks
  • Excessive whole-line emboldening is being added and/or paragraphs are turned into headings
  • Pre-formatting for logs was (accidentally) removed

Examples:

These have all been repaired in short order (and the last one was my question, so I rejected it). To be fair, the user is making some good edits too. What is the best approach to deal with this - tackle the reviewing or the editor? I have added some comments for the editor, but whilst they replied, I think they took the criticism personally, and the message has not been heard.

Source Link
halfer
halfer
  • 151
  • 5

Low quality edits are being robo-reviewed on Ask Ubuntu

I had an edit proposed on one of my questions, and since it did not offer much in the way of improvement, I rejected it. It encouraged me to explore the editor's edit history, where I found a mix of good and bad edits. Sadly a number of the edits that were either of debatable improvement or actively harmful were approved, so I wonder if approvers need to look at Ask Ubuntu reviews more closely?

When drawing attention to problematic editing histories, I prefer not to draw attention to one particular user. Nevertheless it is unavoidable in this case, and at any rate my concern is mainly about the reviewing process rather than the user themselves. The user/revisions are here.

I am seeing these problems:

  • Edits that should be made (e.g. to fix case and spelling errors) are usually untouched
  • Bullet points are added that are not obviously necessary
  • Line breaks are added instead of paragraph breaks
  • Excessive whole-line emboldening is being added
  • Pre-formatting for logs was (accidentally) removed

Examples:

These have all been repaired in short order (and the last one was my question, so I rejected it). To be fair, the user is making some good edits too. What is the best approach to deal with this - tackle the reviewing or the editor? I have added some comments for the editor, but whilst they replied, I don't think I have been heard.