Timeline for Introduce a better way to identify trusted users
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 4, 2012 at 15:53 | comment | added | Chris Gerken | @jmort253: exactly the case. | |
| Nov 3, 2012 at 23:21 | comment | added | Anonymous Coward | Of course. The issue i am referring to is upvoting blindly, as in processing several reviews in just a few seconds. If there was an option to just accept as-is, certain ppl would use that instead of upvoting, without actually reviewing the post. Possibly to get badges or because the post looks 'well formatted' when you look at it for only a second. I don't know if this happens frequently and just goes unnoticed except for extreme cases. Also there are many different opinions on what's considered proper reviewing. | |
| Nov 3, 2012 at 22:09 | comment | added | jmort253 | Well, part of the problem with the review queue is it forces you to upvote or downvote or do something, when quite frankly, not every post needs something be done with it. So perhaps a lot of people are upvoting as a default measure? | |
| Nov 3, 2012 at 19:51 | comment | added | Anonymous Coward | I considered posting about 'one second reviews' or 'who reviews the reviewers' but the issue is basically covered here. One idea is to have the option to veto a review. If a review gets N vetos (number of vetos already cast will not be shown) the review won't count. If a user gets many reviews veto'd, s/he could be temporarily banned from reviewing. This may encourage some to actually review posts instead of just up-voting through them for whatever reason. | |
| Nov 3, 2012 at 18:50 | comment | added | Pekka | @Brad nudge... or slap :) I'm starting to think you could post the first few paragraphs of Das Kapital as a question on Stack Overflow, and under the right conditions it could get a couple of upvotes. | |
| Nov 3, 2012 at 16:26 | comment | added | Brad Larson Mod | Another great example of the bizarre voting that review badge gaming has caused is this link-only answer promoting a user's blog: stackoverflow.com/questions/7498357/… that was upvoted 4 times in under a minute this morning. If moderators had better metrics on who was possibly reviewing poorly (upvoted posts that were later deleted, accept votes that run contrary to three reject votes on a suggested edit, etc.), we could look over those reviews ourselves and maybe nudge people in the right direction. | |
| Nov 3, 2012 at 12:49 | comment | added | avpaderno | This is probably the consequence of including voting as possible action that removes a post from a review queue. As users feel they are doing a good job by limiting the grown of the review queues, some of them will accept voting as needed action, even if the post doesn't really deserve any up-vote. | |
| Nov 3, 2012 at 11:08 | comment | added | Pekka | @CodesInChaos yup, I'm fairly sure that is 100% tied to the review system. | |
| Nov 3, 2012 at 11:07 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | Not sure if it's related to the new review system, but recently I've seen several bad questions with upvotes. And with bad I mean that they're incomprehensible/unanswerable. | |
| Nov 3, 2012 at 10:59 | history | answered | user50049 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |