Timeline for Improving Review Queues - Design overview I: Onboarding and updating workflows
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2020 at 12:29 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | @Mark: That would help some, but a lot of the minor edits that show up in the reopen queue are by the author. They just don't even try to fix the issues due to which the question was closed, probably because the author isn't even aware that making a random edit auto-submits the question for reopening. I guess one way to fix it would be to have a popup show up after editing your own closed question that says something like "If you've fixed all issues with your question, you can flag it for reopening. YOU CAN ONLY DO THIS ONCE!" with buttons to "Flag for reopening" and "Not yet". | |
| May 8, 2020 at 1:23 | comment | added | Mark | @IlmariKaronen, I'd say that only an edit by the author should automatically put the question into the re-open queue. An edit by a third party should result in the editor being asked if the question should be placed in the re-open queue or not. | |
| Apr 29, 2020 at 18:36 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | … IMO, to get the close-and-reopen mechanic working on large sites like SO again, we'll need to keep the reopen queue short and containing only questions that someone has already deemed worth reopening. Which means either turning off the feature than sends edited closed questions to review entirely or moving those questions to a separate queue. | |
| Apr 29, 2020 at 18:35 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | +1. The overabundance of minor edits in the reopen queue also creates a vicious circle, in that it trains reviewers to always click "Leave Closed" unless the review is very obviously an audit. Which means that even actual reasonable reopen votes rarely pass review, which means that few people bother to cast them, which skews the review queue even further towards meaningless minor edits. | |
| Apr 28, 2020 at 13:52 | history | edited | Tomerikoo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 277 characters in body
|
| Apr 28, 2020 at 6:15 | comment | added | VLAZ | I'd personally make it a single edit option but then a separate deliberate action if you want to reopen. I don't like putting two edit buttons upfront. So, it would vaguely look like Edit -> Save -> (optionally) and reopen. Might be better implementations but I definitely think the reopen intention should be decoupled from the edit. So, pre-close suggested edits will not be reopening, pre-close started full edits will still ask you "do you want to nominate for reopening?" (in some fashion) after being done. | |
| Apr 28, 2020 at 6:11 | comment | added | Tomerikoo | So maybe offering 2 edit options on closed questions? Edit for readability, or edit to reopen? | |
| Apr 28, 2020 at 6:09 | comment | added | VLAZ | That's also a reason I don't visit the review often. And also why I don't want "edit" to be the same as "reopen" - a lot of times edits are started before a question is closed and finished after. Either because it was a suggested edit that was approved later or a full edit where the question was closed in the meantime. Neither of those are done with the intention to reopen the question. Making a question uneditable when closed it soling an XY problem at best, if indeed "solving" it. | |
| Apr 28, 2020 at 6:07 | history | edited | Tomerikoo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Apr 28, 2020 at 6:05 | comment | added | Tomerikoo | From my experience (not that is very long), most reviews in the Reopen queue end up being Left Closed because most of them are minor edits which doesn't change anything. This makes me go less to that queue and I think that's a shame and pointing out that something should be done there as well | |
| Apr 28, 2020 at 5:39 | comment | added | VLAZ | "Don't allow people other than OP to edit a closed question." I disagree with this because an edit can make a closed question reopenable, even if it's not from OP. Moreover, an edit can be worth it even if it doesn't reopen a question nor aim to. For example, a good duplicate can be cleaned up for presentation and kept as a pointer to the canonical. The idea is not to reopen the question but still to make it more presentable. I think the core of the problem is conflating "edit" and "reopen" concepts. | |
| Apr 27, 2020 at 17:28 | history | answered | Tomerikoo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |