Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Please post new bug reports, feature requests or discussions as individual questions tagged with at least in addition to the requisite

And thanks for all the great feedback so far!

We are currently soliciting feedback for an improved version of /review to help with the very important task of maintaining site quality. There are three targeted tasks we have built thus far and will continue to roll out others after we gain confidence these three are working:

  • Low Quality Posts: This task targets posts that we've algorithmically determined to be low quality. Your job is to read these posts and:

    • decide if a post does in fact Look Good
    • Edit the post to make it better
    • Delete1 the post entirely
    • or skip it if you are Not Sure.

    The minimum reputation to perform this task corresponds with the ability to edit any post (currently 2,000).

  • Suggested Edits: This task targets posts edited by users who have not yet earned the reputation to fully edit. Your job is to read these edits and:

    • decide to Approve the edit as is
    • Reject the edit
    • Edit the original post and make your own edit
    • Delete the post (moderator only)
    • or skip it if you are Not Sure.

    The minimum reputation to perform this task corresponds with the ability to edit any post (currently 2,000).

  • Close Votes: This task targets posts that have received at least one close vote. These posts generally need additional review to help decide if a post does in fact require closure. Your job is to read these posts and:

    • decide to Close this post by casting another close vote
    • Do Not Close2 this post if do not agree with the reasons for closing
    • Edit this post to make it better
    • or skip it if you are Not Sure.

    The minimum reputation to perform this task corresponds with the ability to cast close votes (currently 3,000).

Each of the actions on the review task listed above may not always be available based on your current reputation or moderator status. We will be reviewing the data collected in this experiment closely to determine if these new review tasks are working and also reserve the right to pull these tasks out entirely if we find they are not. We have enabled these review tasks on Meta, Super User, Server Fault, and Stack Overflow.

To check out the new hotness visit:

1 If you don't have enough rep to delete, you can "Recommend Deletion". This doesn't do anything right now except move it to the front of the queue for people who can delete it.
2 "Do Not Close" just removes it from the queue right now -- it doesn't affect close votes.


locked by Shog9 Aug 14 '12 at 15:25

This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. More info: help center.

@nhahtdh: "These will soon be moved to the new beta Review Task system" - So yes. – animuson Jul 12 '12 at 17:58
What happens with "Not Sure?" What if you want to come back to it later? There doesn't seem to be a mechanism for un-dequeuing a post. – CodeGnome Jul 12 '12 at 18:40
What happened to badge progress? – octopusgrabbus Jul 12 '12 at 20:25
@octopusgrabbus you are still making progress. We will add this back to the new review task soon. – Geoff Dalgas Jul 12 '12 at 20:27
[cross-posted from] You need 2000 rep to use the first two links. I have 1.4k rep on SF with 400 helpful flags. I'm going to still have to use the "old" links until they get move or I get more rep. I'm not expecting for the whole system to be changed but could they be made avalible to those with 2000k rep or 250+ helpful flags? That number demonstatres a decent understand of the flagging system. – tombull89 Jul 13 '12 at 7:38
Are there 85,3k CloseVotes or 85,3k questions with at least one close vote? The second metric would make more sense. – örs Jul 13 '12 at 8:52
Isn't a required rep of 2000 a bit excessive. Its not like a 1000 rep user wouldn't be able to tell if a question was low quality or not. – VBwhatnow Jul 13 '12 at 10:52
With such high rep limits, review might start stalling, especially on AskUbuntu, where panicky users are great in number, and returning users are few. – hexafraction Jul 13 '12 at 12:28
Just want to say that I really like the direction the review workflow has headed. Usability while reviewing was probably my biggest (of few) gripes with SO, so I'm super-excited. A huge thank you to the team for this. – Rob Hruska Jul 13 '12 at 16:37
The "not sure" option rubs me the wrong way. Makes me doubt myself sometimes when all I want to do is move on. Couldn't it say "Pass" or "Skip" instead? – j08691 Jul 13 '12 at 17:27
@PopularDemand - Yeah I had the same thought, although "not sure" connotes a meaning behind the action whereas "skip" or "pass" simply denote the action of moving onto the next review item. – j08691 Jul 13 '12 at 18:44
I like it, great idea!!! One comment: the close vote tab should have a big warning: CAUTION, USING THIS FEATURE CAN REALLY RUIN YOUR DAY (and an ad of the leading antidepressants brand). It's really depressing to see the amount of crap coming by when doing it for half an hour. Worse than the "low quality posts". Ehh, I guess it works... – Gert Arnold Jul 15 '12 at 11:41
@Gert: that's not a terrible idea... I know I can't spend too much time wading through the 10K/mod tools without sinking into despair. Maybe when you run out of close votes it should automatically redirect you to er... – Shog9 Jul 16 '12 at 3:41
I'm a <2K user and I like the old system as it is. I couldn't access to any of these new sections, only to the statistics. Why? That would be my "don't like, stay with old". And of course, I couldn't test any new feature. – Shegit Brahm Jul 17 '12 at 7:01
This way is far more effective and addictive than before. I find myself spending more time looking at the question, and spending more time than in the previous version! – C. Ross Jul 18 '12 at 13:26

58 Answers 58

When you did your 50 daily "Close Votes", the link is "blacked out" and a hint is shown: "You have no more close votes today; come back in 3 hours.".

But if you did your 50 reviews of "Suggested Edits", there is no such message. Not before you click "approve" you will get the "Out of votes - you may only vote 50 times a day." notice. (Especially annoying as there is no notion when to will have some more votes again.)


For the 'close votes' tab, it currently asks the following question:

Should this question be closed as [insert close reason here]?

And then has buttons:

  • Close
  • Do not Close

Clicking 'Close' opens up the close dialog and invites me to choose a reason. It would be faster for reviewing if clicking 'Close' automatically cast a vote for the reason given, that would save having to open up the dialog, selecting an option from the dropdown menu, and then voting to close again. I feel like this slows down my reviewing stride when I'm reviewing a lot of questions.

Perhaps this could be made quicker with another button, something like this:

Should this question be closed as [insert close reason here]?

  • Yes (automatically votes for reason in question)
  • Close for Other Reason (opens close dialog)
  • Do not Close
This can't be done in the case where there are close votes for different close reasons. – bwDraco Jul 13 '12 at 4:36

I was trying the close votes review and noticed that I could be more effective if I could limit the selection to tags I am familiar with.

Its very hard to to judge duplicates and other stuff correctly if the language/tag is one you are not familiar with.

But it is easy to use and I really like it :)

I'm seeing a raft of SQL answers in the Low Quality Posts queue, and after a half dozen or so begin to suspect that the selection is skewed by the SQL tag being one that I follow. Do you follow any tags? (I follow three others, but no hits so far on them.) At first I was thinking SQL lends itself to brief answers, so that the algorithm for Low Quality Answers was responsible for the skewing. – hardmath Jul 14 '12 at 19:05
@hardmath I was using the close vots system and got ton of php questions. I don't have php in my favorite tags. – örs Jul 15 '12 at 12:13
  • When improving an edit I'd like to be able to easily see what the question looked like before the suggested edit - helpful when improving borderline edits. Even just a link to the original post would be good, but it disappears the moment you hit improve. As far as I can see the only way to make the link to the original edit appear is to cancel the improvement.

  • When reviewing edits more feedback on what the other reviewers have decided would be good, especially if they've entered a custom message.

+1 pr much more to this - On some edits when I have had my attention to the question I see the original could be improved but the newer is much worse – Mark Jul 14 '12 at 11:05

Two improvements that I could see going a long way towards improving editing accuracy:

  • Showing if a question/answer is Community Wiki in Suggested Edits
  • Allowing editors to see comments made on questions (in Suggested Edits only).

The former allows one to take a double take on whether or not the edit improves the question as a whole, and can relax most fears about the edit being vandalism.

The latter allows for editors to indicate if an edit was made in direct response to remarks in the comments. I may be hesitant to spring for this, as the OP should update their question, but it can help in certain cases.

CW status should already be visible. Edits that depend on comments are an edge-case - if you're concerned, use the link to break out into the full question page (we'll be making this a bit more obvious). – Shog9 Jul 25 '12 at 17:16

The new process seems promising, but I'm concerned it implicitly moves the goal posts for deleting Low Quality Answers.

Under Jeff Atwood's year-old dictum, deletion is for very low quality answers, unlikely to be salvageable, embarrassingly bad stuff.

The new process encourages reviewers to click Recommend to Delete if the answer under review would require substantial editing to fix (retyping > 20% of the answer and significantly changing its character) while a competing answer has already gotten it right, one way or another.

This might be intentional and/or a good thing. I'm just saying it's a change in criteria, and possibly an unintended consequence. The issue may deserve an airing in its own thread, but I wanted to throw it out here as it's early days.

This is why "Recommend Deletion" is fairly toothless at the moment - we really want to keep a sharp eye on it for a while before making it any more powerful. One would hope the majority of reviewers would abstain from recommending deletion of posts that aren't unsalvabeable garbage, but if folks are too delete-happy then we'll need to account for that. – Shog9 Jul 14 '12 at 22:06
Perusing the Reveiw History some people do in fact seem to want to delete code-only answers which I think is a mistake. – Some Helpful Commenter Jul 18 '12 at 16:39

In /Close Votes, I'd suggest to add the following functionality to the Do Not Close button: if the question gets closed, cast a reopen vote automatically.

We're considering a couple possibilities for what "Do Not Close" will ultimately do. One option is for it to cast a reopen vote. Another is for it to cause the close votes to start aging and eventually be deleted. – David Fullerton Jul 16 '12 at 21:57
@David I like the second option, too. It will help to remove old and answered questions from the reviewing queue in a smart (selective), although hard, way. I think both options could be implemented though, they don't seem to contradict. – Lev Levitsky Jul 16 '12 at 22:06

The Suggested Edits page does not provide any way to get the context. For example I was reviewing a Suggested Edit that added a change to run a command in the original answer as root. To undertand whether that was warranted required reading the original question.

When reviewing Vote to Close questions, you can just click the question to get the context. This is absent in the Suggested Edits page.

I had to click the user, then activity, then find the question the edit was made to so that I could read the question and answer in context.

I'd also venture that in the case of a non-accepted, low-quality answer, the other answers are an important part of the context, too. An answer may be low-quality, but if there are one or more good answers, then often it could just be left in peace. – Monolo Jul 17 '12 at 11:04

What little I can see looks cool now, but it would be nice if some other folks (for example, 40k users on SO who only have 1.6k rep here) could see it too... :)

Maybe I'm dense but I can't figure out what the row of gravatars after each of the tools represents?

The row of gravatars are recent reviewers. We're working on UI to make that clearer. – Emmett Jul 12 '12 at 17:39
It has now been enabled on SO. – Geoff Dalgas Jul 12 '12 at 17:59
@GeoffDalgas w00t! – Ernest Friedman-Hill Jul 12 '12 at 18:12

I'm facing an issue related with the rejection of tag-wiki's:

More than once that I've came across and rejected the same tag wiki.

Seems like my previous rejection wasn't registered or isn't being recognized as "already rejected by me" when prepared for presentation.

Nice work on this new review system, I'm an even more happy user :)


Can we please have a feature to Improve wiki tag edits? (clicking more doesn't add the improve option).

For example, in the edit presented below, the spacing and punctuation aren't very good, but the content is sound, however I wouldn't approve it till it is improved, at the same time I don't want to reject it as its not really invalid:

missing improve option for wiki tag edits

Also, I think it would also help if under the sections for rejection there was a "Edit doesn't match tag" option, specific to wiki tag edits, as I've seen quite a few edits that don't match (either cause they really don't match or there is a misunderstanding of the tag), and typing a custom reason each time is a bit laborious, but at the same time I don't feel that it falls under "Invalid Edit".

The Improve option is omitted here because it's a tag wiki excerpt, and you don't have permission to edit tag wikis yet. What would be a nice workflow however (possibly) would be to offer you the Improve option, and when clicked, route your improvement into the edit queue. – Matt Jul 16 '12 at 10:41
@Matt: I'm a 12k user, surely I have the option to edit, or at least suggest an edit? however, adding the improvement to the queue for approval would work quite well. – Necrolis Jul 16 '12 at 10:44
Editing tag wikis (without it needing to be reviewed) is a 20k privilege. I agree that it'd be nice for you to be able to suggest an improvement though; which is what the second part of my original comment was addressing. – Matt Jul 16 '12 at 10:45
@Matt: makes sense, though, editing a suggested edit isn't the same as editing the tag directly, as it still require approval. – Necrolis Jul 16 '12 at 10:48
Yeah, but what I'd possibly like to see is there being an "Improve" option for <20k's, but instead of it being accepted immediately (like it would for a 20k+ user, because they have tag wiki privileges), is for your improvement to be added to the suggested edit queue itself. – Matt Jul 16 '12 at 10:50
Does that means somebody would review your suggested edit for a suggested edit, and decide if it should be accepted? What happens if it is rejected? Would the original suggested edit still need to be reviewed? It is a not necessary complication. – kiamlaluno Jul 16 '12 at 15:47
@kiamlaluno: i envision it to work exactly like improving suggested q/a edits, it'll remove the original edit, and then be place in the review queue – Necrolis Jul 16 '12 at 16:04
But in that case, you can improve a suggested edit if you can edit that post. This would mean that the "improve" button would appear to who can edit every tag wiki (20k users). – kiamlaluno Jul 16 '12 at 16:07
@kiamlaluno: those who can edit directly (ie 20k+ users) would have their improvement applied directly, the rest would go into review like normal tag edits (but both will remove the edit they 'improved'). imo its a bit ridiculous to limit improvement to just 20k+ users, totally defeats the purpose of encouraging involvement. – Necrolis Jul 16 '12 at 16:11
This would open up a massive can of worms (ending up with some complicated revision history full of pending edits). If you have the ability to edit the wiki directly, you can do this; otherwise, reject the edit. – Shog9 Jul 25 '12 at 17:18

Could you please rename "Improve" → "Edit" in the suggested edits? "Improve" and "Approve" are just too similar words.

Just now I approved an edit that I wanted to improve … and mark it as not helpful.

Uh, no. And if you make this mistake too often, you might want to take a break from reviewing edits... ;-) – Shog9 Jul 25 '12 at 17:23

While I'm not 100% positive it is a result of this new feature, as one who does not have the authority to edit posts directly, I have noticed a significant decrease in the time it takes for my suggestions to be reviewed. Generally within a few minutes, my suggestions are accepted, whereas a few weeks ago, it could have taken a few hours.

It also appears that the suggested edit queue has been kept very low, which also helps me, since I find it very frustrating to look at a horrible, needs-to-be-edited-now post, but I can't submit an edit because there are too many pending suggestions.

From my perspective, the new system works great!

I think people are reviewing edits more now. I do believe that was a major goal for this, so it sounds like it's working fabulously – Ben Brocka Jul 20 '12 at 14:06
I'm unsure how much of this is the novelty of a brand new system versus people using it more because of the actual changes. We'll know after another few weeks. – Servy Jul 20 '12 at 15:31

Does the new system take into account favourite and ignored tags as say the interesting tab does.
The reason I ask is that when reviewing I will often ignore items that are not in my skills as I do not know enough and having to click on these will slow things down and put me off reviewing which is not what the change is meant to do.

If we do go to the new interface could we sort the items giving the favourites first , then other interesting.

I support this, but is this duplicate? – Caner Jul 17 '12 at 13:34
@Caner Yes I think the link looks a duplicate of this – Mark Jul 17 '12 at 13:36

When relative times are used elsewhere, the full datetime is included as a title attribute. This isn't the case for the times in the recent review list, or the "asked"/"answered"/"actives" times beside posts. I'd like it to be included.

Fix going out soon. – David Fullerton Jul 16 '12 at 18:44

If you take action on a suggested edit which has already been approved/ rejected, you get a popup saying (along the lines of):

This suggested edit has already been approved. Please visit the post and ...

However, after this, you are still sat on the same edit, albeit with the button you clicked removed.

enter image description here

What I would expect to happen is the controls being replaced by "Next" and that taking you to the next edit.


Prioritize flags

It would be nice to have if there was a way to filter out auto generated flags or some other way to prioritize flagged things. For example Low Quality Posts section has many posts auto-flagged incorrectly. This makes it a bit waste of time to go through all of them. The "contribute something useful" to "spent time" ratio is very low IMO on these.

I guess user flags are more likely to be accurate than auto flags so it would be nice if they are somehow prioritized and handled immediately.

Another idea is to also prioritize recently flagged posts. I guess in most cases it is much more valuable to immediately handle a recent flag rather then spend time on an 1 month old question.

Also auto-flager could be improved. One idea that comes to my mind is that when a question has many answers that are flagged because of length & content, those answers could be excluded from auto-flag?

An example of legit answer with many other legit(but flagged) answers:

enter image description here

There's a lot of potential here, but for the time being we'll focus on prioritizing items automatically based on the tags you're active in. – Shog9 Jul 25 '12 at 17:20

It would be great if an option can be provided to filter the answers/questions for review using specified tags.

I cannot see any more progress towards my gold badges, like Copy Editor, Marshal, Proofreader, etc. It will be handy to have one.

Also in the new review system a reviewer cannot upvote/downvote the answer being reviewed (and flagging).

It seems that classification of flagged questions is very confusing. I.e. the classification should be split into groups according to actions to be taken of the question: delete (not a real question, spam), close, move (not belongs here). 3 options should be sufficient.


One task I'd like to be able to do is look for old questions and answers that are under review. It was difficult under the old system, but impossible under the new. While not everyone is interested in this sort of drudgery, this clean-up can be quite helpful, given the number of old duplicates and poorly written questions that crop up when trying to search the site.

Some have requested a feature to limit reviews to certain tags. My suggestion would be for an expanded version of this, with various filters that can be applied to reviews: tags, dates, the "Close Votes" and "Close Reasons" from the old review system, flags (user- & auto-flags).


Does editing from the close vote review page have to take the user away from the question once the edit is submitted? Sometimes I want to both edit and give my opinion on whether the question should be closed.

Disagree -- this new behavior is a feature not a bug IMHO! – Ernest Friedman-Hill Jul 12 '12 at 19:27
Yeah, I saw your answer, and expected a downvote. Why do you consider this behavior to be a positive thing? – Pops Jul 12 '12 at 19:30
I always thought the old behavior was a huge pain, because when you were through editing, you stayed on the question page, and you lost your place in the list of review tasks. The "back" button wouldn't bring you back to the exact same place you were previously in, and the page wouldn't reflect the edit you just did (IIRC). But generally I can't recall wanting to leave a comment after I edited; if this was something I wanted to do frequently, then I could definitely see where you were coming from. – Ernest Friedman-Hill Jul 12 '12 at 19:38
Editing implies "Do not close". From the instructions: "Edit if this question could be improved so that it does not need to be closed" – David Fullerton Jul 12 '12 at 19:45
Well, sure, the current instructions. This proposal includes changing those instructions as a side effect. – Pops Jul 13 '12 at 13:43
@PopularDemand I'm confused then...are you suggesting that you want to edit the post and then vote to close? – David Fullerton Jul 13 '12 at 20:32
Sometimes. Just because a post is closed doesn't mean it ought to look like crap. And there's always that "Not Sure" option, too. If a Haskell question has a possible duplicate and I don't know the first thing about Haskell, I should still be given the option to fix up the grammar without saying "I think this dupe suggestion is incorrect." – Pops Jul 13 '12 at 20:33

I would like a little addition to "looks good" I have reviewed a few answers where the quality of the discussion on the answer was high enough for me to make it a keeper, even though the answer was perhaps voted down. Perhaps an "answer is good" vs "answer and comments are important"

"Answer is wrong" is another "Looks Good" reason. Wrong answers are answers all the same. – user7116 Jul 13 '12 at 16:38

Should items that have already been edited show up in this list? I have seen both items that have been edited by >2k users (or edited by <2k and approved) in these lists. I also have seen items that already have an edit pending.

Shouldnt these items be filtered out so we are not reviewing the already edited?

Which list are you referring to (low quality, vote to close, suggested edits)? – David Fullerton Jul 13 '12 at 20:36
Review - First Answers – Jake1164 Jul 14 '12 at 1:52

Comment on review for low quality posts.

This applies to low quality answers only.

As noted in other questions we need to be able to vote on these.

We need to be able to see other answers as the action differs depending on these. If there is another good answer then the shown answer should be deleted. If there are no other good answers then it has to be improved.

Re recommend deletion - under the old system the only way to get answers deleted was to flag for a moderator but flags get "declined - flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer" so this is a totally new way of doing things. (although I would also note that according to this Q&A the mods might not be correct or consistent here) Thus I think the recommend for deletion really needs a full explanation.

We also definitely need a way to convert (or recommend to convert) to comment. Many bad answers could be at least half-decent and not entirely irrelevant comments. It also seems that at least some bad answers are replies to what is basically a bad question, so the root cause would lie with the question. Some tools to deal with the question could be useful on the page to handle low-quality answers. – Monolo Jul 17 '12 at 10:58
If your threshold for convert to comment is "wouldn't be a completely crap comment", then your bar is too low. If your motivation for converting to a comment is "there are better answers", then you misunderstand the purpose of comments. Comments are not for second-tier answers! If an answer makes no effort to answer the question, then recommend deletion; if it's complete unintelligible garbage, then recommend deletion. If you just disagree with it, or think it could be better, then move on or edit - converting a lousy answer to a lousy comment helps no one. – Shog9 Jul 24 '12 at 20:02
@Shog9 - I am referring to answers that jus ask for more details – Mark Jul 24 '12 at 20:14
@Mark: realistically, those are only useful as comments early in the life of the question. Later on, it makes more sense to just jump out of the LQ queue and vote to close the question. – Shog9 Jul 24 '12 at 23:58
FWIW: I'm not completely against doing some sort of "convert to comment" tool here, but I'd prefer to see a clear need first - and some major roadblocks to it even if it is available. – Shog9 Jul 25 '12 at 16:58

Here's a :

When voting to delete an answer with a 0-score, in that case, this one, it says that I voted to delete it in the history.

… but it doesn't show on the actual post:

The delete (1) link is missing here.

This is allowed only in the context of the low-quality queue. It came out that down-voting posts from the old queue purely to allow voting-to-delete was a fairly common pattern - which is kinda missing the point. Users who have vote-to-delete rights on answers will see answers that've already been recommended for deletion in their queue if the score is 0 or below, and will thus be able to vote-to-delete them. Voting to deleting 0-scored answers isn't permitted in any other context. – Shog9 Jul 20 '12 at 22:24
Ah, that was actually one thing I had pointed out earlier in context of the "recommend deletion" confusion. Still it would be nice if the post actually showed delete (1) on the normal page just so it doesn't come across as a bug ;) – slhck Jul 20 '12 at 22:27

The algorithm under the 'Low Quality Posts' retrieve too many items of the SQL section in my opinion.

SQL question are generally answered by a few number of characters representing the query, with little comments. All the answers are good, maybe they need more explanation, but that's it.

Maybe a filter by tag for this particular case should be an improvement.

Or mix the length of the post with the reputation of the poster. A 20 characters answer of a 2000+ rep user must be better than a 50 characters answer of a 10 rep user.

Or, check the other answers. If there are 5 (n>1, really) answers on the same question, and all are "low quality" then it may be because that is the best answer warranted by the question. In this case, I'm all for skipping over these. However, as soon as someone has gone a little above and beyond the rest, then maybe the others should be more critically reviewed. – Gaffi Jul 25 '12 at 17:53
We're tweaking this formula a bit, to give a little more weight to code. Also, not saying it'd help, but... Folks could stand to use a bit more lower-case in their SQL. Just sayin'... – Shog9 Aug 11 '12 at 16:00
My personal convention IS ALL CAPS! SORRY GUYS, SQL IS SO MUCH MORE BEAUTIFUL THAT WAY :p – Cyril Gandon Aug 13 '12 at 6:52

Is there any chance of going back to the review list upon saving an edit?

When a <2k user clicks on "More" under suggested edits why not show the pending edits without the option to interact? This would show what your <2k peers are editing and how (learn to edit by example).


For the Suggested Edits tab, I don't have the 5K rep needed to access the Suggested Edits queue on my main site (SuperUser). I just see it as always 0 suggested edits needed. I do have more than 2K rep on that site, so the link does show up for me, but why is it there if I can't access the queue?


Completely impractical. Very poor workflow design. Presenting reviews one at a time is just too slow a process. If there really are 58.1k 'close' votes pending, nobody is ever going to get to them all.

You need to present 20/50/100 to a page so people can pick their areas of expertise, and probably let people filter them based on tags etc, in fact let them use the existing search function.

And the vote-to-close process needs to be streamlined. For example if you agree with a prior 'exact duplicate' you shouldn't have to go through all the same rigmarole with about 5 mouse clicks.

I would also reconsider the wording of 'not sure'. I am often extremely sure that I don't have a view about specific reviews. How about 'don't care' or just 'next'? But with the change above the issue becomes moot.

I think "Completely impractical" is excessive hyperbole. Also, the vote-to-close aspect has already been mentioned here. – jadarnel27 Jul 13 '12 at 4:55
@jadarnel27 You are welcome to your opinion; this is mine, and there is no hyperbole in it whatsoever. Please explain how this system improves the chances of dealing with 58.1k votes to close. And then please explain why it is illegitimate to state things that are present in other responses. – EJP Jul 13 '12 at 10:42
+1 completely agree. Probably will not do any further reviewing with this system ... – kleopatra Jul 13 '12 at 11:31
Disagree; in the old design having to scroll and scroll through question was a pain, I prefer keeping my mouse in place and click and click and click (hopefully with keyboard shortcuts will be even better) – CharlesB Jul 13 '12 at 12:25
It seems to be working quite well for some tasks (the suggested edit queue, for instance) so the new review panel is not "completely impractical"; that's the hyperbole I'm talking about. There's no need to "throw the baby out with the bath water". Also, any system for dealing with 58k close votes is going to be daunting - but don't forget that there are "many hands" as well, so to speak. Re: duplicate response, I just don't think it adds anything on to what ManishEarth already said (and his answer is worded much more constructively). – jadarnel27 Jul 13 '12 at 12:42
The whole idea of this is that, as individual user, you shouldn't be trying "to get to them all." You're supposed to be working through a bite-sized piece, and other people will work on other bite-sized pieces. You're definitely entitled to your opinion about the workflow, but I think you're kind of missing the point here. Filtering based on tags might be a good idea, though. – Laura Jul 13 '12 at 14:58
@Laura I don't find that the 'whole idea of this' is actually stated anywhere. I just find a major paradigm shift that adds usability problems and significantly reduces my capability to execute the function concerned. – EJP Jul 15 '12 at 2:07
@jadarnel27 It is competely impractical for me and at least one other commenter. That is not hyperbole, it is fact. There are already over fifty responses to this question, and I hope there will be many more. I have not read them all: any expectation to the contrary is misplaced. Note that if the proposed redesign was applied to these responses it would make the task of reading them all bfore posting even more Herculean. – EJP Jul 15 '12 at 2:09
I will add that the vote to delete this post reflects extremely poorly on the voter concerned. This is supposed to be a community discussion where we have been invited to post our opinions. It is not a technical question where there are correct and incorrect answers. – EJP Jul 15 '12 at 10:33
@EJP You're right; perhaps the introduction to these changes could have more explicitly stated the goal. Typically, the way things work here, though, is that we beta test new features on SO and maybe SF/SU, gather feedback, tweak as necessary, then roll out the feature network-wide. Once it's available across the network, if it's a major change, there will usually be a blog post about it. We can work on better describing our goals when we announce things on meta. – Laura Jul 16 '12 at 15:39
@EJP Note, however, the first sentence of the announcement: "We are currently soliciting feedback for an improved version of /review..." The /review feature has been around for a while; it's just getting an upgrade. I think we assumed that people were already familiar with the goal of /review since some version of it has existed for quite some time, but like I said, we can work on being clearer in the future. – Laura Jul 16 '12 at 15:41
@Laura I commented on the upgrade, not the feature. Presenting me with an arbitrary sequence of reviews to process until I get sick of it isn't a rational strategy. You should allow me to choose. – EJP Jul 23 '12 at 2:25
I disagree with most of this; the goal has never been to have one person reviewing every single item in a queue this size - that's a recipe for burnout. However, I agree that duplicate closing could be streamlined a bit more - we'll be looking at this after work on /review has progressed further. – Shog9 Jul 25 '12 at 16:50
@Shog That's the point. That's why I want to be able to filter. When I could see a page full, I could filter. Now I'm given a random sequence. It's not an improvement. – EJP Jul 27 '12 at 2:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .