Return to Answer

I think that this statement:

people might still be notified of review tasks they have already completed if they don't get cleared after an hour.

is a bigger issue than you are allowing for.

###Why do we care about false positives?

On a particular small site that I am an active reviewer on, the close vote queue can sit with active items for entirely too long. Given the number of votes it takes to close items, this is not surprising in a smaller community. One solution for this problem, is for the moderator to come through and impart their will for the entire community, by processing the queue. While this will clear the queue, it will not allow the site to build a community of reviewers as the site tries to move from small to (hopefully) larger.

Therefore, the close vote queue will routinely not be cleared in an hour. So, what is the result? The indicator is then frequently on for those who have gone through the queue recently (last day or two). So, those who might actually be willing to go to the queue when needed, will get trained to ignore the indicator because it is too often wrong.

I realize that SO regulars will laugh at the notion that the close vote queue could possibly be cleared in a timely manner, but... it is possible. Unix, where I have been an active reviewer, and who was featured in your examples, manages to get their close votes processed on a regular basis.

###Answer to your question:

• Yes, Please

  On sites with few reviews per hour, notify about anything to do in the review queues. Less than 2 per hour seems like a reasonable threshold.

• No, Thank you

  Please don't lie about there being something to do in the queues.

I think that this statement:

people might still be notified of review tasks they have already completed if they don't get cleared after an hour.

is a bigger issue than you are allowing for.

Why do we care about false positives?

On a particular small site that I am an active reviewer on, the close vote queue can sit with active items for entirely too long. Given the number of votes it takes to close items, this is not surprising in a smaller community. One solution for this problem, is for the moderator to come through and impart their will for the entire community, by processing the queue. While this will clear the queue, it will not allow the site to build a community of reviewers as the site tries to move from small to (hopefully) larger.

Therefore, the close vote queue will routinely not be cleared in an hour. So, what is the result? The indicator is then frequently on for those who have gone through the queue recently (last day or two). So, those who might actually be willing to go to the queue when needed, will get trained to ignore the indicator because it is too often wrong.

I realize that SO regulars will laugh at the notion that the close vote queue could possibly be cleared in a timely manner, but... it is possible. Unix, where I have been an active reviewer, and who was featured in your examples, manages to get their close votes processed on a regular basis.

Answer to your question:

• Yes, Please

  On sites with few reviews per hour, notify about anything to do in the review queues. Less than 2 per hour seems like a reasonable threshold.

• No, Thank you

  Please don't lie about there being something to do in the queues.

I think that this statement:

people might still be notified of review tasks they have already completed if they don't get cleared after an hour.

is a bigger issue than than you are allowing for.

###Why do we care about false positives?

On a particular small site that I am an active reviewer on, the close vote queue can sit with active items for entirely too long. Given the number of votes it takes to close items, this is not surprising in a smaller community. One solution for this problem, is for the moderator to come through and impart their will for the entire community, by processing the queue. While this will clear the queue, it will not allow the site to build a community of reviewers as the site tries to move from small to (hopefully) larger.

Therefore, the close vote queue will routinely not be cleared in an hour. So, what is the result? The indicator is then frequently on for those who have gone through the queue recently (last day or two). So, those who might actually be willing to go to the queue when needed, will get trained to ignore the indicator because it is too often wrong.

I realize that SO regulars will laugh at the notion that the close vote queue could possibly be cleared in a timely manner, but... it is possible. Unix, where I have been an active reviewer, and who was featured in your examples, manages to get their close votes processed on a regular basis.

###Answer to your question:

• Yes, Please

  On sites with few reviews per hour, notify about anything to do in the review queues. Less than 2 per hour seems like a reasonable threshold.

• No, Thank you

  Please don't lie about there being something to do in the queues.

I think that this statement:

people might still be notified of review tasks they have already completed if they don't get cleared after an hour.

is a bigger issue than you are allowing for.

###Why do we care about false positives?

On a particular small site that I am an active reviewer on, the close vote queue can sit with active items for entirely too long. Given the number of votes it takes to close items, this is not surprising in a smaller community. One solution for this problem, is for the moderator to come through and impart their will for the entire community, by processing the queue. While this will clear the queue, it will not allow the site to build a community of reviewers as the site tries to move from small to (hopefully) larger.

Therefore, the close vote queue will routinely not be cleared in an hour. So, what is the result? The indicator is then frequently on for those who have gone through the queue recently (last day or two). So, those who might actually be willing to go to the queue when needed, will get trained to ignore the indicator because it is too often wrong.

I realize that SO regulars will laugh at the notion that the close vote queue could possibly be cleared in a timely manner, but... it is possible. Unix, where I have been an active reviewer, and who was featured in your examples, manages to get their close votes processed on a regular basis.

###Answer to your question:

• Yes, Please

  On sites with few reviews per hour, notify about anything to do in the review queues. Less than 2 per hour seems like a reasonable threshold.

• No, Thank you

  Please don't lie about there being something to do in the queues.

I think that this statement:

people might still be notified of review tasks they have already completed if they don't get cleared after an hour.

is a bigger issue than than you are allowing for.

###Why do we care about false positives?

One a particular small site that I am an active reviewer on, the close vote queue can sit with active items for entirely too long. Given the number of votes it takes to close items, this is not surprising in a smaller community. One solution for this problem is that the moderator can come through and impart their will for the entire community by going through the queue. While this will clear the queue, it will not allow the site to build a community of reviewers as the site tries to move from small to (hopefully) larger.

Therefore, the close vote queue will routinely not be cleared in an hour. So, what is the result? The indicator is then frequently on for those who have gone through the queue recently (last day or two). So, those who might actually be willing to go to the queue when needed, will get trained to ignore the indicator because it is too often wrong.

I realize the SO regulars will laugh at the notion that the close vote queue could possibly be cleared in a timely manner, but... it is possible. Unix, where I have been an active reviewer, and who was featured in your examples, manages to get the close votes processed on a regular basis.

###Answer to your question:

• Yes, Please

  On sites without lots of reviews per hour, notify about anything to do in the review queues. Less than 2 per hours seems like a reasonable threshold.

• No, Thank you

  Please don't lie about there being something to do in the queues.

I think that this statement:

people might still be notified of review tasks they have already completed if they don't get cleared after an hour.

is a bigger issue than than you are allowing for.

###Why do we care about false positives?

On a particular small site that I am an active reviewer on, the close vote queue can sit with active items for entirely too long. Given the number of votes it takes to close items, this is not surprising in a smaller community. One solution for this problem, is for the moderator to come through and impart their will for the entire community, by processing the queue. While this will clear the queue, it will not allow the site to build a community of reviewers as the site tries to move from small to (hopefully) larger.

Therefore, the close vote queue will routinely not be cleared in an hour. So, what is the result? The indicator is then frequently on for those who have gone through the queue recently (last day or two). So, those who might actually be willing to go to the queue when needed, will get trained to ignore the indicator because it is too often wrong.

I realize that SO regulars will laugh at the notion that the close vote queue could possibly be cleared in a timely manner, but... it is possible. Unix, where I have been an active reviewer, and who was featured in your examples, manages to get their close votes processed on a regular basis.

###Answer to your question:

• Yes, Please

  On sites with few reviews per hour, notify about anything to do in the review queues. Less than 2 per hour seems like a reasonable threshold.

• No, Thank you

  Please don't lie about there being something to do in the queues.