Timeline for Suggestion to reduce fake first-post reviews by adding minimum time to complete
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:57 | vote | accept | UpAndAdam | ||
| Sep 10, 2013 at 17:26 | |||||
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:28 | comment | added | UpAndAdam | let us continue this discussion in chat | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:27 | comment | added | UpAndAdam | That's really interesting, no question to the justifiable part, I'd imagine that would lead to a wild-west free-for-all | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:26 | comment | added | Servy | @UpAndAdam I said it right in the first sentence of my answer. It's a few seconds. I haven't gotten out a clock, it's somewhere in the 1-3 second range. Time it yourself (or look into the JS source code) if you're really that curious. I'm not talking about other queues at all. You said first posts, so I'm talking about first posts. | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:24 | comment | added | UpAndAdam | Not sure how I can find out how it exists when I can't even find something to review lol. but I'll take your word for it; That said I don't dispute at all that non-first post reviews should be significantly shorter in most cases. | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:24 | comment | added | Servy | @UpAndAdam Actually, people were complaining about poor reviewers much more loudly, more frequently, and justifiably (there have been a number of features added to inhibit poor reviews, several have been quite successful), than today. | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:22 | comment | added | UpAndAdam | That's a good point and a much better MADE one; at the same time yesterday isn't today. I doubt anyone would have had time to notice or complain about too many fake reviews being accepted back then.. Needle in a haystack. Today I'd suggest using this to help stem the problem of duplicate posts and perhaps I should have made that louder in my suggestion. | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:21 | comment | added | Servy | @UpAndAdam You assume that every single question requires looking up a duplicate. It does not. There are going to be some posts that are going to take a fair bit of time an effort, and there are going to be some that are not. In fact, in a lot of the queues, there are a lot of items that take very little effort, either because they're so obviously correct, or so obviously bad. Part of this speed is indeed a product of practice, which you don't have. As for how long is too long, as I already said, this feature exists. You can see for yourself, but the time is about 2 seconds or so. | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:19 | comment | added | Servy | @UpAndAdam You've only reviewed a handful of posts, mostly over a short period of time. When the queue was first released it had a few tens of thousands of items in it. That most certainly is several orders of magnitude more items than it sees currently (since currently it stays in the 0-2 orders of magnitude, not 4-5). | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:15 | comment | added | Servy |
@UpAndAdam You suggested a rate limit of one minute, saying that it isn't possible to review a post in less time: "A good review generally can't possibly be done in under a minute" That's false, and I can say so from extensive experience both reviewing and looking at the reviews of others. I've seen plenty of legitimate reviewers doing a number of reviews at 2-5 seconds each (not for every single post, but for a large portion).
|
|
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:13 | comment | added | UpAndAdam | @Wooble The whole POST is about the first post queue. It's in the title and the description. I can't yet even look at the other queue cuz my rep isnt high enough.. but thanks for downvoting me anyways. | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:08 | comment | added | UpAndAdam | I never said that any of that nor did I even imply it; I never said how long I or others should spend on a review, how long the delay should be, and how many should be done. So I think you missed something. You presuppose harm without defining a rate at which it even becomes noticeable. And you do so without even addressing any of my key points. I don't spend more than 2-5 minutes on a review unless its major editing. I'm saying I don't even encounter things to review on first post list. | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:03 | comment | added | Undo | @Servy We have to remember that the OP is just over 500 on SO, and hasn't experienced the big queues like you and me have - I imagine it would make a difference in your thinking. We've been reviewing for orders of magnitude longer, and are maybe a bit faster at reviewing - but it's great if the OP is spending that much time on each review. I just can't afford to. | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 16:01 | comment | added | Servy | @UpAndAdam As I said, problematic reviewers are indeed a concern, we simply need to use different means of inhibiting them besides an excessive rate-limiting, so that we can prevent abuse without inhibiting legitimate reviewers. | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 15:59 | comment | added | Servy | @UpAndAdam Just because you can't complete 3 reviews in a day doesn't mean it takes everyone that long. You're arguing that nobody should be reviewing items faster than one per minute. I'm saying that there are some, even a noticeable number of people, that will be able to do at least some reviews rather quickly. There are posts that are very obviously good, and it can be seen in just a few seconds; there are also posts so bad you can tell they need to go away in a few seconds. There are some in the middle that will take a minute or several, but not all. | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 15:54 | comment | added | UpAndAdam | Then I'd suggest it doesn't exist in an effective manner since it doesn't seem to be deterring anything from my view, or I wouldn't have made the post. I appreciate the point of not hindering actual reviewers but you haven't even defined at what time amount it even hinders said reviewers... but again I also question how they can check for a duplicate issue within "seconds" Given that many people such as myself can't find 3 reviews to look at in the day, let alone complete 20, you didn't even consider excess capacity. In short your reply demonstrates you didn't actually read the whole thing | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 15:49 | history | answered | Servy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |