What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

Proposal

Provide access to a single page which acts similar to each individual review queue page (First Posts, Late Answers, LQP, Suggested Edits, etc.). When accessed, this single page will present to the user the next qualifying reviewable item from any accessible review queue. Specific review queues can be removed from the query process by checking a box at the top of the page. Access to the page could be locked for inexperienced (low reputation or low review count) users.

Problems inherent in this approach and their related solutions are addressed below.

Background

Based on feedback from my prior request asking to present the review counts when a particular review queue becomes invalid, I was informed of a certain tactic:

  1. open each individual review queue in a separate tab
  2. refresh each tab until a reviewable item appears or the quota is met

This "power reviewer process" likely creates unnecessary traffic for the website and requires more work from the reviewing user.

Advantages

By providing a single page presenting any qualifying review,

  1. potentially reduce site usage
  2. reduce window management from "power reviewers"
  3. provide a tool for all reviewers
  4. reduce the number of clicks and page views needed to review when a "non-power reviewer" hits a queue end (empty queue or quota met)

Drawbacks (and solutions)

Knowledge of Review Type

The obvious drawback is the user needs to to know which type of review is being presented. This is already remedied on the individual queues by having the type of review at the top left of the page. With the consolidated page, the review type text could be provided with more emphasis. Additionally, by accessing this page, the user should be experienced enough to know what to look for. Page access could be potentially locked until a user passes a particular review or reputation threshold.

Forced to Review Undesired Queues

Another drawback would be the notion the reviewer is being forced to review items he wouldn't want to review (Close Votes instead of say, Low Quality Posts). It is likely these particular reviewers are out for Badges!, which isn't as necessarily helpful as reviewing in general. Access to the existing individual queues will not be removed. An additional enhancement to the single page could be to have a set of checkboxes at the top of the page, allowing only for specific types of reviews to be presented.

Presentation Order

A third drawback would be the desire of a user preference for the order of the reviews presented. Low Quality Posts are much less frequent than Suggested Edits (and therefore are more "valuable" to badge-seekers). Reviews presented could be sorted either by age (likely the site moderator preference), observed rarity (LQP > LA > FP > SE > CV), or user-specific rarity (ordered based on the lowest number of reviews conducted by the user for each type).

Robo-Reviewers

While this tool may inadvertently benefit the so-called robo-reviewers by making it easier for all users to not have to work as hard to locate items to review, preventing robo-reviewers is not the intent of this proposal and should be delegated to other questions. Existing solutions to robo-reviewers include the page load delay. I would assume other prevention tactics include behavior analysis: (1) tracking their suggested edit approve/reject rate in comparison with the resulting approval/rejection, (2) confirming if there is any modification of their behavior patterns during their review process.

share|improve this question
    
Haters gonna hate; qualify those downvotes. –  JoshDM Jun 3 '13 at 17:43
7  
Downvotes simply mean they disagree. I didn't downvote bu I don't approve. I'll explain why in a second. –  ʞunɥdɐpɐɥd Jun 3 '13 at 17:49
3  
Sounds like you just need to stop and come back in a few minutes when there isn't anything to review rather than finding more effective means of handling reviews a few milliseconds more quickly when they come in. –  Servy Jun 3 '13 at 18:07

2 Answers 2

Another drawback would be the notion the reviewer is being forced to review items he wouldn't want to review (Close Votes instead of say, Low Quality Posts). It is likely these particular reviewers are out for Badges!, which isn't as necessarily helpful as reviewing in general. Access to the existing individual queues will not be removed.

Frankly, I think exactly the opposite. Someone who just wants any review is more likely to be a badge hunter looking to keep chopping away at the 1000 needed for the Steward Badge in all categories, it is only as they get close to the end of the road do they concern themselves with the specific review queue.

When reviewing, you have a specific work flow for a specific type of review. By constantly changing it up, you make it difficult for the review to establish any sort of rhythm, and slow up their work.

Additionally, there are a number of review queues that I feel more qualified to work in than others. Because I do not know many languages, the Last Answer queue is difficult for me to make fair judgements so I tend to avoid it (and when I do enter it, I use the skip button a lot more than in other queues).

Your suggestion about "checkboxes" to filter the reviews presented would solve my personal objection in the previous paragraph, but just because you don't care what type of review you want, why do you want me to have to go in and specify which review type I want to see. Given the lack of user preferences on the site (and the fact that they will never happen), I am likely going to have to set my preferences each time, so why do you want to make it more difficult for me to contribute to the site in the best way that I can?

share|improve this answer
    
So click the check box. I'm going to go emphasize that in the proposal because you're now the second person to miss it before you answered. –  JoshDM Jun 3 '13 at 18:00
1  
@JoshDM I did see that and that is only going to solve my personal preferences (preferring specific queues over the other) in the last paragraph. My first paragraph about the badge hunters won;t be solved by check boxes. –  psubsee2003 Jun 3 '13 at 18:04

BadgeHunters - Speed Runners - RoboReviewers : The Real Problem

Those guys are the real problem and won't be stopped by a little checkbox that allows you to choose preffered categories. You told me :

If you don't whip through whatever you're doing to get back out to that queues list to see the next item to review in a different category (oh right, it's cached), you miss it.

Yeah and then.. what if you miss it ? It is not a speed contest. Do you want the badges as fast as you can ? The whole point of this system is not to race to make as many reviews as possible it's simply to let the community review low rep users' posts. Stop making it about time and how many reviews you can do. We should concentrate on the quality of the reviews instead because that's a real issue. Also you have a limit of 20 Reviews a day so no matter how fast you do them you still have a cap.

Now..

I don't want to loose suggested edits (or the any other review type I'm currently working in) because the lazy user that likes all types of review decided to choose give me all reviews so I can go faster option. This would advantage the users taking this options because they don't have to change the review category to have reviews assigned.

And let's be serious here...

What good would that do to the review queue ?

Implementing such a thing is a little bit overkill for the slight advantages it could provide.
You already have an page to choose the type of review you want. You can stay on that page and refresh it and then choose.

Some interesting things :

  • Why should I be penalised because I choose to review in a single specific category ?
  • Why would I have to look to see what type of review I'm currently doing ?
  • Why would I change the type of thing I'm reviewing everytime ? I don't know about you but when I'm reviewing posts, my standards / guidelines are not the same for every type. I will have to change mindset every time I change the post ?

What good would it do except speed things up for users choosing this ? Nothing.

tldr;

Reviewing is not a speed contest. Robo-Reviewers are already a problem, let's not help them.

share|improve this answer
    
"What if I want to do everything except Low Quality Post ? I will Robo-Review them when I get them ? " - ADDRESSED IN THE PROPOSAL : checkbox to not have them in the list. –  JoshDM Jun 3 '13 at 17:57
    
I only see robo-reviewing as a speed contest because of the way it's currently implemented. If you don't whip through whatever you're doing to get back out to that queues list to see the next item to review in a different category (oh right, it's cached), you miss it. With a single page, one can take your time reviewing on that page, be done, and rather than jump back to the queues list to find the next one and forth to the next item, it's right there in front of you. –  JoshDM Jun 3 '13 at 17:59
    
Additionally, I do mention locking access until a reputation or review count barrier is passed. –  JoshDM Jun 3 '13 at 18:04
    
Thanks for quoting me out of context. –  JoshDM Jun 3 '13 at 18:40
    
@JoshDM Well it's actually what you just said. And considereing the proposal you made in your question, you seem to think you're loosing precious time with the current system. Also I like to keep the comment section clean so I just updated my answer. –  ʞunɥdɐpɐɥd Jun 3 '13 at 18:47
    
I'm not "loosing precious time" more than the existing system is designed in such a way that it wastes time. –  JoshDM Jun 3 '13 at 18:59
1  
@JoshDM That's your opinion. And meta is the right place to express it. You gave me your opinion and it made sense that's why I updvoted you. This is my opinion that explains,even though I understand your request, why I don't think it's a good idea. –  ʞunɥdɐpɐɥd Jun 3 '13 at 19:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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