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

On SO, at least, there are more than 600 questions/answers to review. I figure that no-one is going to plough their way through all 600, so maybe a default 'random' sort order would be a good idea, so that we get more eyes on more posts.

Just a thought.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Servy, Tobias Kienzler, Rory, Aziz Shaikh, Lance Roberts Jul 2 '13 at 14:59

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "The problem described here can no longer be reproduced. Changes to the system or to the circumstances affecting the asker have rendered it obsolete. If you encounter a similar problem, please post a new question." – Servy, Tobias Kienzler, Rory, Aziz Shaikh, Lance Roberts
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Huh. I figured it already was random. Never bothered to check. – Pops Feb 17 '11 at 16:48

This is now implemented (to be released soon);

  • if there are more than (some number, currently 90) matching posts, you automatically get a random sampling; paging and sorting is disabled
  • otherwise, you get the "current" view, with paging and sorting
share|improve this answer
Is there a way to turn this off for filter=all? Over the last month I've spent all my flags slowly working up to page 55. The randomizing of the 300K results has removed all sense of progress. – yhw42 Feb 18 '11 at 14:17
@yhw42 hmm - not without a change, unless you filter it by tag first. Let me discuss it internally... – Marc Gravell Feb 18 '11 at 17:05
Thanks for looking at it. It's not that important, so if it takes effort, don't worry. I'll still dig through the old cruft. :) – yhw42 Feb 20 '11 at 16:27
I also was progressing through items in order, but that was because they were sorted from "worst" (according to the algorithm) to "best". That meant that I'd find a greater concentration of non-answers at the low end of this sorting, which is where I'd start. The random ordering means that I now see fewer non-answers per page because there is no preference to the ones that perform worse on the review algorithm. – Brad Larson Feb 21 '11 at 21:48

I would rather have the possibility to define custom search as in:

 /review/first-answers?search=help or thanks or please or thanks or please

Any first-time answer with one of those terms in it is likely to be suspicious.

share|improve this answer
L'un n'exclut pas l'autre :) – Benjol Dec 16 '10 at 13:17
@VonC the webpage link in your profile is broken :( – badp Dec 16 '10 at 18:09
@radp: "fixed" (in a way) – VonC Dec 16 '10 at 19:09
@VonC, this now works – Benjol Jan 7 '11 at 10:47
@Benjol: excellent. It works for first answers as well:… – VonC Jan 7 '11 at 11:33
@VonC, it works for any text too... – Benjol Jan 7 '11 at 12:04
@Benjol awesome! – VonC Jan 7 '11 at 12:06

The "newest" sort order should be nearly as good as a "random" sort. Assuming people don't arrive synchronized at the page, everybody should get different newest posts.

share|improve this answer

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