Timeline for Are 'reasonably bad' reviewers in any way being detected or 'punished'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| May 13, 2013 at 0:34 | answer | added | yannis | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 12, 2013 at 23:50 | comment | added | nickhar | Am I the only one to sense the irony in this post being peer-closed and re-opened?... | |
| May 12, 2013 at 23:47 | comment | added | Niels Keurentjes | @slugster he's calling it 'suspicious', not 'wrong'. The second would be totally incorrect, the first is a perfectly valid assumption if it frequently happens to the same user. I've also actually done a rollback twice in the past few days where a corrupting edit got lightning-approved, so yeah manually backchecking makes sense at times. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 23:43 | comment | added | slugster | @Doorknob That is a totally incorrect assumption to make. I've frequently rejected something only to have 3 robo-reviewers approve it. Fortunately I monitor for this sort of thing and I can go back and make the manual edit (or sometimes rollback) myself. You could ask what makes me think my review was right and the others were wrong? My answer is that I am more likely to be right than three fresh 2K users who are gunning for badges. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 23:24 | history | reopened |
Niels Keurentjes martin clayton This_is_NOT_a_forum gnat ЯegDwight |
||
| May 12, 2013 at 23:24 | history | edited | ЯegDwight | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| May 12, 2013 at 23:19 | comment | added | Bart | @Niels In this case you'd simply use the "other" flag option on a relevant post (the last one reviewed perhaps) and clearly explain to a moderator what you have found, including a link to the user's profile. That usually does the trick. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 22:19 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| May 12, 2013 at 23:24 | |||||
| May 12, 2013 at 22:07 | history | edited | Niels Keurentjes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarified topic intent
|
| May 12, 2013 at 21:57 | history | closed |
gnat Toon Krijthe ben is uǝq backwards ɥʇǝS avpaderno |
exact duplicate | |
| May 12, 2013 at 21:51 | comment | added | Niels Keurentjes | @slhck alright, thanks :) was just curious whether there was also some sort of "non-question-related flag" option somewhere I hadn't found yet. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 21:50 | comment | added | slhck | The proper way to alert moderators of this would be to flag one of the posts, explaining what's wrong. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 21:46 | comment | added | Niels Keurentjes | Funny that a topic about 'reviewers not reading all that well before casting their votes' has already garnered 4 close votes because it would be a duplicate of a completely unrelated topic. This has nothing to do with the audit system that is in place to detect people voting without reading, this is about people structurally casting votes that do not agree with final consensus on the decision, or are far too lenient or strict in general. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 21:41 | comment | added | Niels Keurentjes | Out of curiosity, I checked the mentioned user's Recent Reviews manually and found 2 more 'disputable approvals' even on the last page. Is there even a proper way to alert moderators to this? | |
| May 12, 2013 at 21:33 | answer | added | nickhar | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 12, 2013 at 21:30 | comment | added | slhck | I agree some statistical measures of outliers could be applied here, e.g. looking at quantiles. For the record, we (moderators) do have advanced statistics about what the reviewers do, and we can manually check their behavior—if something makes us check, that is. But this part of the system should definitely be improved. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 20:28 | comment | added | Niels Keurentjes | @Doorknob if it happens a statistically relevant number of times - disagreement belongs in the democratic system, but structural continuous disagreement means you don't understand the policies or the intentions. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 20:26 | comment | added | Doorknob | also, rejecting when 3 others approve, or approving when 3 others reject, is suspicious | |
| May 12, 2013 at 20:04 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 12, 2013 at 21:59 | |||||
| May 12, 2013 at 20:03 | comment | added | Hugo Dozois | @Oded The thing is that you can avoid all audits in the suggested edit queue by refreshing the page ! meta.stackexchange.com/questions/175911 | |
| May 12, 2013 at 19:44 | history | edited | gnat |
relevant tags / features: review-audits and review-suspension
|
|
| May 12, 2013 at 19:37 | answer | added | Eran | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 12, 2013 at 19:10 | comment | added | Niels Keurentjes | Well and that's why the ratio should just be a guideline for initiating a review of his 'conflicting decisions', and if the user is then 'cleared' because the quality is actually good - all is fine and he won't be flagged again anywhere soon. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 19:03 | history | edited | Niels Keurentjes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarified that the gotcha system is not under discussion here
|
| May 12, 2013 at 19:02 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand Staff | That's the thing, I'm not sure where a peer could determine how many reviews were skipped, or even if the system currently keeps track of that. Similarly it is possible for a user to up-vote a lot of stuff they find useful, but be extremely cautious about down-voting. Does this mean they are failing as a community contributor? The ratio isn't necessarily what's important, IMHO, but rather the quality of the actions themselves. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 18:59 | comment | added | Niels Keurentjes | @AaronBertrand that's why I don't propose an automated sanction, just a peer review if someone appears to be 'operating his own criteria structurally instead of the generally accepted ones'. Also, the self-analysis could obviously factor in skipped reviews, I assume those are also being counted. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 18:55 | comment | added | Niels Keurentjes | @Oded as said in my post, the gotchas appear to be 'so obviously wrong' that the robo-approvers manage to evade them properly, and just approve everything that looks 'kinda right'. Otherwise the user in question wouldn't have been able to get to casting 345 votes. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 18:55 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand Staff | It may also be the case that certain people are more likely to take any action on an edit if it is to approve. They may have reviewed 500 proposed edits that they neither approved nor rejected. I think it's dangerous to rely on ratio metrics unless the full gamut of activity is available. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 18:53 | comment | added | Bart | I don't know what is automatically detected or not, but if you see a particularly problematic case, flag for moderator attention. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 18:53 | comment | added | Oded StaffMod | meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157121/… | |
| May 12, 2013 at 18:52 | comment | added | juergen d | I'm sorry - I did not read to the end... | |
| May 12, 2013 at 18:51 | history | asked | Niels Keurentjes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |