I’m always kinda grinding my teeth about the 7-day voting period on edits that I know nobody is going to vote on. I get the reason for the voting system, but out of my ~9,000 accepted non-auto edits, 7799 were never voted on. The worst part is when I accidentally make conflicting edits, and then have to wait another week for an edit that should already be accepted to go through. Like this one: https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/41588428.
I make good edits and when I make a mistake I fix it. I’m never going to have the volume of edits that auto-editors have, but I’d sure make a lot more edits if I didn’t have to wait on the majority of them (6600 auto edits vs 9000 accepted edits). I know there’s been a change made to auto-accept edits in a short time period after a release is added, but that doesn’t help when I’m making a series of changes that could span weeks or longer, and involves releases, artists, events, series, places, etc.
What I’ve come up with is the idea of a “trusted editor”, which would be automatically assigned based on a combination of:
*a not too onerous threshold of edits accepted
*percentage of edits accepted vs voted down
*record of responding to comments from other editors
*maybe a certain frequency of edits or a certain period of time since an edit was voted down?
*definitely not based on failed or cancelled edits, since the vast majority of those are caused by the waiting period
The benefits for the trusted editor would be:
*auto-edits on any entity that you’re the only person to edit, with the same exclusions as auto-editors
*auto-edits when you were the last person to have that kind of edit accepted on an entity, unless the entity has a history of controversial edits or something like that
*maybe have a way to flag edits that would have been voted on so that they are still likely to be seen/commented on by other editors if necessary (the only edits of mine that I can see causing any issue in this system are the 4 that were voted down, and the 38 that I cancelled based on no votes and feedback - 42 out of over 16,000)
My 2 cents, personally I always find complicated sets of user categories quite annoying.
A 7 day wait period is also annoying! But it’s about giving people time to see your edits people who might not be on the computer every day. I don’t often vote ‘yes’ on edits, but I do glance at my subscriptions and vote or leave comments if there’s something dodgy or interesting. So ‘7799 were never voted on’ seems damning, but doesn’t really mean that much.
And your example is a destructive edit so I wouldn’t really want to have that be an auto-edit. 99% of the time it’s fine, but having to go back and change things back (misunderstandings/mistakes do happen, it doesn’t have to be malicious intent) is always the biggest bummer for me.
I think there’s some bigger ideas in the background that could offer better solutions - for instance I would be keen on going to 100% auto-edits if there’s the ability to roll back edits to an earlier state afterwards. I think that might be the long term plan?
On a different note, I’d actually like to see completely new editors have less auto-edits…
[quote=“psychoadept, post:1, topic:172565, full:true”]
*auto-edits on any entity that you’re the only person to edit[/quote]
This one sounds straightforward and very useful though!
ps I think you’ll find opinions quite divided, people who just edit a lot are going to be for this, people who’ve been around a while, have a massive bulk of editing behind them, and who actually look at their subscriptions, will probably take issue. Both are valuable groups of people and if you can find suggestions that make both happy I think that would be a massive step forward. Not easy though.
That’s another idea that crossed my mind, but it struck me as being much harder to implement than a few logical (in the programming sense) rules. I would love to see that happen, though. It’s sort of where I was going with my last point about flagging edits that would otherwise have been up for vote.
So 42 edits that would have had to be changed back is a bigger bummer than over 400 failed/cancelled edits that could have been totally avoided? Granted, the canceled edits were still things I had to change, but it added another step.
Of course there are other things that would help, too:
*there’s a ticket open about catching conflicting edits when they’re made
*another partial solution would be better handling for “mediums.” That’s where I’ve run into the worst conflicts. It never makes senses to me that if I’ve edited one part of a medium, and that’s accepted, another edit to a completely different part of the medium would then fail. I got really burned when I had to reenter the same huge edit to a medium four times in a row (only one of those was due to a conflicting edit, but that was awful enough). I’d much rather have done that edit one piece at a time, but then I’d had to have waited a week after each edit before I could enter the next.
[quote=“psychoadept, post:3, topic:172565”]
So 42 edits that would have had to be changed back is a bigger bummer than over 400 failed/cancelled edits that could have been totally avoided?[/quote]Yes! You having to watch out for conflicts isn’t a bummer for me, but fixing my subscriptions is
I do see your point though.
I get what you’re saying, and I’m pretty good at predicting conflicts, but there’s no way I will ever catch them all. It’s more factors than I can keep in my brain at once. I doubt many people would.
I too, see it as a handicap that for certain edits we cannot instantly see the result of what we did, but have to wait a week. It makes it very difficult to remember what we already did edit (because we cannot see the results) and what still needs editing. It leads to conflicting edits indeed.
Could be a solution, that for all edits we can see the results but that they are marked as drafts (in the orange background) until they are approved?
I do not agree with giving this possible “feature” (seeing in draft all edits) only to some editors, but I am in favor of giving this feature to all editors.
Yeah, I know there’s been discussion elsewhere of treating other edits like the artwork edits. I think that’s what @aerozol is referring to when he says make everything auto-edits, but have a way to roll them back if needed
Aaah, I see [quote=“aerozol, post:2, topic:172565”]
I think there’s some bigger ideas in the background that could offer better solutions - for instance I would be keen on going to 100% auto-edits if there’s the ability to roll back edits to an earlier state afterwards
[/quote]
[quote=“aerozol, post:2, topic:172565”]