Timeline for Are 'reasonably bad' reviewers in any way being detected or 'punished'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2013 at 0:28 | comment | added | slugster | @Asad you're taking a very liberal and inclusive approach, which is okay - but I'm arguing something slightly different to that. There is a reasonable amount of behavior detection built into the system, and I'm arguing that those who hit the Skip button excessively and almost never hit Reject - IOW the outliers from normal review behavior - should be tracked along with suspected robo reviewers. Sure they may help a little, but do they fit in with the desired community behavior over all? They wouldn't necessarily be banned or anything, but at least they will be identified. | |
| May 13, 2013 at 0:03 | comment | added | user200500 | @slugster Sure, learning to use Reject is a good thing. But to equate skipping a review with an actively harmful practice is just wrong-headed. If someone skips a review, it's still there in the queue for those that care to make the "tough decisions". In another place you claimed that if a person can't make tough decisions, they should get out of the review queue. Why? What benefit is there to disqualifying users from providing what small measure of help they can? | |
| May 13, 2013 at 0:00 | comment | added | slugster | @Asad My comment is not about using the Skip, it's about using it to avoid any negative review actions. We don't want only good edits approved, we also want bad edits rejected, these are equally or possibly even more important. Robo-reviewers are bad, but those that only choose the easy reviews are almost as bad, no matter how much they think they are helping. Hitting Approve and Skip is easy - people need to learn how to hit Reject as well. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 23:54 | comment | added | user200500 | @slugster I don't know what you're talking about. It makes you the exact opposite of a robo-reviewer, who will never consider the Skip button at all. Perhaps it isn't as helpful as making informed decisions on both good and bad edits, but withholding judgement when in doubt is infinitely superior to just blindly approving or rejecting everything. I don't see how you could compare those two behaviors at all. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 22:30 | comment | added | slugster | Sorry, but I've down voted you based on the statement I only reject edits on rare occasions. As per my other comment, reviewers should not be concentrating on the low hanging fruit, IMVHO this makes you not much better than a robo reviewer. Bad edits need to be rejected. I understand you won't be able to make a decision on every bad edit you see, but avoiding negative decisions and taking mainly positive ones isn't a totally helpful way to review no matter how good it makes you feel about what you're doing. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 19:57 | comment | added | Niels Keurentjes | If you arrive at those numbers, and only a small number of your decisions were 'controversial', the system shouldn't flag you. If you get to those numbers by placing 100 votes that weren't the eventual result, your voting behaviour should be inspected. I should've been shorter about making that point I suppose, rather ironic that @Gnat votes to close this question as a duplicate of an unrelated issue :P | |
| May 12, 2013 at 19:45 | comment | added | Niels Keurentjes | I just looked at your history and your last page already shows 2 rejections. When I say a 'normal' ratio appears to be within 25 to 50 percent, I'm inviting the site admins to dive into the database and correct the number - I'm just guessing from a limited set of samples. My point is about a 2% approval rate being obviously 'suspicious' at the very least, especially if a significant number of those approvals are 'close calls'. You won't run into the latter if skip potentially conflicting votes anyway. | |
| May 12, 2013 at 19:37 | history | answered | Eran | CC BY-SA 3.0 |