Remember, the goal here is to put questions on a path to their most appropriate destination as quickly as possible. We can make mistakes - we just need to do significantly better than the automated systems. Which is still a pretty low bar, albeit one that First Posts struggles to clear.
My gut feeling is that if we provide an editing option, we'll want it to pull the question out of triage and into... another state. One where we gently beat the editor over the head with the notion that he should be editing the whole damn post and not just fixing code formatting or that one annoying typo.
Based on the ones that I reviewed in the Triage (a tiny data set), I don't see it working. The triage outcome doesn't coincide with the actual fate of the questions. The triage reviewers don't seem to be in harmony with the opinion of the community stackoverflow.com/review/triage/6392684
Regardless, I don't particularly want editing to happen in the triage queue itself. Even for a fast editor, editing is a lot slower than clicking a button, and other folks may be waiting on you to finish.
I'm also going to rant about how the triage reviewers don't seem to be aware that crap should be dealt with. I wouldn't be against significantly rising the rep limit to access the queue, like 3-5k. 2k
> this question has too many issues and isn't worth fixing ≠ Unsalvageable > this question requires work Append "to fix"? Why no flag dialog? Why no comment dialog? "Unsalvageable" needs work too, make them mutually exclusive.
I'd rather have low-rep users triaging and high-rep users in specialized queues where their experience can be put to better use. Or, y'know, answering questions.
Reputation system breaks down after about 1k. After then all the mod tools get unlocked which has nothing to do with post contributions. Mod tools should be unlocked by modding! It's especially obvious on the high end. 20k users really aren't better than 10k users. Certainly 100k won't make a difference.
@Shog9 You know what does make them a good one? Experience. So, for example you should be able to insta-edit when you have enough edits approved (minus 3x edits rejected).
Same for answers. If you don't know what you're looking at, differentiating between highly specialized knowledge and Markov bullshit can be... challenging.
Don't get me wrong - I like the concept of earning your way to more privileges by demonstrating competence in the same area. But it only goes so far. At some level, it's really hard to beat "skin in the game" as a check on abuse.
I'm sick and tired of people repeatedly spamming the edit queue with minor edits. I want to punish the editors and robo-reviewers and prevent some of them from entering the queue in the first place.
The audits are too easy
It covers the vandalism reject reason, but what about the other ones? A ...
This edit was already approved - please visit the post and correct the edit.
Why? Can't I have a rollback button on the page? Preferably putting the edit into a mod queue to consider review-banning the robo-reviewers? The extra clicking seems unnecessary.
@Shog9 Given that the rep system is kinda borked (sympathy upvoting, +10,-2, no vote confidence scoring (WHERE'S MY META POST THAT GOT ROOMBA'D), etc.) and the high current requirements (like 20k (!)), I don't think that works.
Random thought #3: Award moderation tools upon sufficient (i.e. a lot of) Meta participation + sufficient (i.e. even more of) days spent on the site, instead of measuring reputation?
Consider users posting on Meta with nice feature requests and bug reports, and upvote discussion threads themselves, that would indicate awareness on the system, blah blah blah
@Unihedron I'm pretty sure I have more meta participation than most of you, and therefore am qualified to speak to its value: it doesn't make you a good moderator.
@Shog9 What does? Positive meta participation and badges are the two more accurate reflections of your activity on the site / helping the site, in my opinion.
@InfiniteHappiness not exactly irrelevant. But not an accurate measure of anything. It shows you're at least interested beyond the parent site. But that's about it.
@JanDvorak No, they speak of me being... How do I say this without it coming back to haunt me... able to state the obvious without sounding too patronizing.
The Room is a 2003 independent romantic drama film written, directed, produced by, and starring Tommy Wiseau. The film is primarily centered on the melodramatic love triangle between an amiable banker (Wiseau), his fiancée (Juliette Danielle), and his conflicted best friend (Greg Sestero). A significant portion of the film is dedicated to a series of unrelated subplots involving the friends and family of the main characters.
Entertainment Weekly has called The Room "the Citizen Kane of bad movies" and a number of notable publications have labeled it as one of the worst films ever made. Originally...
@Bart, that reminds me. There is a conversation you could walk away from... meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/278619/…. The post by Cupcake which he is referring to is totally unrelated (I know because I was involved). That is a dead-end conversation you are having there
> Besides being the best tree there is, I have strong allergies to certain cats, ducks, glasses, socks, dogs, owlhead/dodo, peeping eyes, and other items I find myself liable to stumble across.
I'm not a fan of long usernames. Having an ellipsis may encourage more people to have long usernames. For example my current username is cVplZ, not close vote please. — Sompuperoo19 hours ago
Today I have voted to close the question about Stack Apps: The black hole known as Meta Stack Apps.
I noticed that everyone who reviewed this question in close votes review left open it.
So I wondered, aren't the questions about Stack Apps off-topic there because "pertain to specific site", lik...