Timeline for Improving Review Queues - Design overview I: Onboarding and updating workflows
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 0:36 | comment | added | Jeremy Caney | @ZoeTheLockdownPrincess: That seems like a reasonable concern, though according to Cody: “This is why I (and several of the other moderators) are staunch advocates of revamping the audit system to allow us to nominate posts as audit candidates (both false-positives and false-negatives). We would select posts that are obvious and unmistakable, yet still represent corner-cases that often seem to trip up reviewers. This would be far more effective for pedagogical purposes, and I believe it would still scale adequately, as we could serve similar audits to all users without defeating the purpose.” | |
| Jun 10, 2020 at 23:32 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump | @JeremyCaney over on Stack Overflow, there's currently next to no mod flag handling. Adding more workload to the mods at this time won't work. | |
| Jun 10, 2020 at 23:12 | comment | added | Jeremy Caney | @ZoeTheLockdownPrincess: Cody has advocated for moderator-curated audits (reference) in order to minimize the number of false-positives and false-negatives—or, at least, audits which might not be especially useful from a pedagogical perspective. I really like that idea. | |
| Apr 24, 2020 at 7:36 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump | Or, better yet, get rid of the current awful audit system and replace it with something that isn't designed purely as a trap. There's been countless audit fails where reviewers (including me) have gotten stuck wit ha bad audit that was mishandled originally. I use Samuel Liew's review queue helper userscript so I don't have to deal with garbage audits, and it honestly made reviewing a lot more pleasant. | |
| Apr 23, 2020 at 22:25 | history | answered | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |