Update: I wish I could downvote decline justification twice.
"You can already filter down by close reason." Oh really ,
Do you see many reviewers using filter?
Do you see Steward badges awarded for Close Votes as frequently as these would be to obtain with appropriately filtered review queue? Hint: currently, there are 1-2 CV Steward badges awarded a day
...300 freaking easy golden badges that could drain 40,000 items from the queue in less than a month, and so little interest in these among 10,000 eligible users - why?
Do you see review queue draining?
No, no and no.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind decline with a reasonable explanation. But this one... it just doesn't fly.
As of today, review queue has hit over 60K, and it doesn't look like getting any better.
- Per my observations, recent changes in close reasons made it substantially easier to make close decisions, but review queue continues to grow - why?
- This is great, this shows that there are reviewers who found the way to do it efficiently. But wast majority reviewers don't know about it, as indicated by pitiful 1-2 CV Steward badges a day - why?
In the absence of a reasonable decline,
why don't you just give it a try?
Review flow for questions having duplicate votes / flags substantially differs from all other items, because no other items require reviewer to consider more than one question.
For reviewers unaware about filtering by close reasons, mixing two such different flows could significantly lower productivity (as discussed in more details in another post - by the way note comment right below this post, 'Wow. I never even saw the "filter" link...'").
- Actually, this also somewhat impacts even those who filter their reviews: say if you set filter to not constructive, some reviews for duplicates will still leak through; this will happen to questions having both NC and duplicate votes / flags.
Given above, suggest to firmly separate possible duplicate items from the rest, so that reviewer will be guaranteed to pass through items having consistent flow: either 1) only items having no duplicate suggestions or 2) only items having dupes (with the option to switch between mentioned "flows").
Proposed usability improvement is motivated by
complaints about close votes queue being huge and growing:
- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61
Per some estimates, it is going to take almost two years for it to come down to normal size.
I think the part of the problem is that often, new reviewers who could potentially help in handling it become disappointed and distracted by inconvenience of working with this queue. Not only newbies, even experienced reviewers note how frustrating is the experience working with close votes queue:
The size of the close votes queue is intimidating to me, and I tend to only go plow through that queue when I'm in a very good mood around once or twice a week, leaving tons of close votes that never get used the rest of the week...
When (if) review queue will drop to size making reviewers productivity less of a matter, suggested separation could be reconsidered.
I think if it is possible to find out how many users with less than 1000 reviews are making less than 5-10 items a day average, this will indicate how many of them find this queue harder than it really is, and respectively, whether it is worth investing effort in making life easier for guys like that.
Thing is, with "filtered" flow getting golden badge in this queue is substantially easier than even Electorate or Fanatic, and there would simply be no sensible reason for them to run reviews that slowly.