Timeline for Notification for reviews shows way too many
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2018 at 3:56 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Dec 9, 2017 at 3:49 | answer | added | Shog9Mod | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 9, 2017 at 3:47 | history | edited | Shog9Mod |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 17, 2015 at 14:23 | history | edited | Doorknob | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Aug 24, 2014 at 3:09 | history | edited | Shog9Mod |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 30, 2014 at 21:20 | history | reopened | Shog9Mod | ||
| Apr 30, 2014 at 21:20 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | I'm re-opening this because, although it is a direct consequence of this feature request, the concerns are specific and distinct from those expressed or addressed there. This behavior is absolutely not an accident; rather, it is an intentional trade-off for which in return we get the ability to call attention to what on many sites is an often-ignored but incredibly powerful tool. | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 20:39 | history | closed |
Martijn Pieters Azik gnat michaelb958--GoFundMonica CRABOLO |
Duplicate of Notify users of possible reviews on toolbar [duplicate] | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 20:19 | history | edited | Shog9Mod |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 30, 2014 at 8:56 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | This is a network-wide bug, as I'd come here to report the same thing regarding what I see on ServerFault. | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:44 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @Mołot actually it should be in both places. When trying to flag network related things in MSO asking to migrate to MSE, my flags were rejected. (For the record, I didn't see this report here before submitting my own, assuming it's SO only issue) | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:42 | comment | added | Mołot | @ShadowWizard I'd say it is the other way around - if it is a network-wide, it should be resolved here, not there. | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:33 | history | edited | Mołot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 598 characters in body
|
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:21 | comment | added | Mołot | @MartijnPieters that's what cache is for, isn't it? If they expect me to click notifications to get my numbers every few minutes, why can't they automatically refresh cache to get me these numbers without a click, the same few minutes? And if they expect me to only click when I feel like reviewing, no matter any numbers, then I already have a link for that, I don't need another. | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:21 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters | Specifically, see Anna Lear's response: It doesn't take individual user actions into account at all at the moment and It is also cached, so may or may not be very accurate depending on the amount of ongoing activity in /review at any given time. | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:19 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters | For the top bar shown on each and every page? Yes. | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:15 | comment | added | Mołot | @MartijnPieters It can show me personified number on each queue separately all right, but suddenly adding six or ten integers is over it's limitation? Sorry, can't believe it. | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:14 | comment | added | Martijn Pieters | The implementation is not 'personalised' and is also cached. This isn't a design bug; it is a limitation of what a site at Stack Overflow scale can achieve with such a number. | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:08 | comment | added | Nick Stauner | Yeah, I don't see how this change completes that feature request, as it seems to ignore the last two sentences of that question: "This should be something that you can get to 0 every day. Making it something that is an unmanageable number makes it something people will ignore, and that's not what this is suggesting." I sure hope this doesn't become a ever-present notification I have to learn to just ignore... | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:07 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 30, 2014 at 10:06 | |||||
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:04 | comment | added | Mołot | @NickStauner If it "works as designed", then I think it is a design bug that will make people ignore this count. | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:04 | comment | added | Jehof | @Molot. Yeah for me too on Stackoverflow. Now i´m more confused. Currently I think the number displays to much information | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:01 | history | edited | Mołot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 30, 2014 at 7:01 | comment | added | Nick Stauner | Same on Cognitive Sciences right now. I see some oddness on DBA too, as mentioned in the comment on the question @Jehof linked. Anna Lear responded, "Not bugged. The topbar count is every review in the system, not just the ones available to you (ie ones you haven't skipped or already otherwise acted on)." Shog9 says, "this is everything in review, even stuff that you, personally, can't review. Super-expensive to personalize this - so the alternative is simply not having an indicator. Think of it as... A reminder to encourage your peers to review." | |
| Apr 30, 2014 at 6:56 | history | edited | Mołot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 30, 2014 at 6:46 | history | asked | Mołot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |