I have noticed the same thing. Personally I disagree with code edits, but I would like to know what others think.. Personal anecdote Recently I have received many useful suggestions in comments, some of which have been wrong. For example on this question https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/26330/15599 this user https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/users/...


Users should not edit code by other users. Even if an edit seems correct, it might not work with the original computer. Golfers like to make nonportable assumptions which are not true with every platform, or with every version of a programming language. Suppose I write sed(1) regular expression /[0-9][0-9]*/, matching one or more digits. Another user wants ...


What can I do to avoid these kind of edits, apart from posting my complaint here? Put them in the right order to begin with. ;) I'm kidding, of course - you're free to put them in any order you like. If someone does that once or twice, I wouldn't worry about it and just reject/rollback the edit. If they insist on it, and either start a rollback war or keep ...


Many of the low-quality flags are auto-generated by Community. I wouldn't take them too seriously.


First and foremost I'd like to sent a great big ATABOY to our reviewers. Unanimous rejection of all of those implies the absence of robo-reviewing. Yeah for us! Moderators have no more direct handle on that kind of thing than do ordinary users, but I will bring it to the attention of the team. And thanks for the heads-up.


If a comment exists explaining what's wrong and based on that comment it's obvious why the post should be deleted, you should upvote that comment. If no such comment exists, you should consider adding one. You can then vote to delete with "No comment needed" selected.


I would personally approve it unless the post is very old (I approved these two old post edits today because I didn't notice the date, sorry about that) the language code used in that edit is invalid (I've seen lang-julia, lang-r and lang-clojure in suggested edits but these codes do not actually exist, there is no support for Julia and R and the correct ...


This is currently uncustomizable and according to the CMs, it is not something they are planning to customize. In nearly all circumstances, duplicate answers aren't OK; CGCC is exceptionally unique in this regard, so we will have to live with this unfortunately.


First of all, you don't have to assume anything. As soon as you get the privilege of reviewing posts in a specific queue, you can switch to the history tab to see which actions have been taken by whom. For first posts, the history can be found here. In this history, if you click on the action that has been taken, you're lead to the review task for that ...


I agree with Chris Jester-Young. I do not take those auto-generated flags too seriously. And I add this: If possible (normally it is), edit the answer to improve its formatting. If the answer is salvageable, go on and save it (ditto for questions). I am doing this for sometime, the result was that I got the first Strunk & White badge of the site.


This was most likely just bad timing. I assume the question you were reviewing is What date encoding could this be?. It was asked at 10:57:13 UTC. It entered the review queue at 11:00:01 UTC. It was deleted 11:12:35 UTC. It left the review queue at 11:14:53 UTC. So the question was removed from the review queue because it was deleted, it just happened ...


Users can't be expected to go back and check on an answer two days later to see if it's been updated. Voting to delete feels equally wrong, since it's unnecessarily harsh (according to the consensus). Skipping it doesn't make sense, since someone else will have to review it instead. I don't follow the logic in that last sentence. Skipping it ...


I think code-only answers are, in general, legitimate. In some cases, if you understand the language you don't need explanations. In other cases, there's no real way to appreciate an answer without them. But I wouldn't say we need to ban them or something.

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible