Catija, you may remember me (or perhaps not) as having recently requested three-vote-close on Ask Ubuntu. I've since changed my mind on this, after having hit 3k rep myself there and seeing the (IMHO) poor quality of close-vote reviews there.

Unlocked by voting to close/reopen (including reviews)

The problem is that this just makes people rush through reviews even faster, further reducing the quality. For instance, voting to close because a "quick read" of something is "needs details or clarity" is far easier than editing it to make it more clear and readable. I rarely hit my review cap during any given day primarily because I spend more time editing (and sometimes even answering) posts there that others have been VTC'ing as "Needs details or clarity."

Encouraging reviewers to "rush" their reviews in order to reach "trusted reviewer" status more quickly clearly has the side-effect of reducing the time spent and (by extension) the quality of those reviews.

Whether someone's reviews were actually "good" and whether someone should be able to robo-review and still get this privilege is a concern to me. I don't think they should.

I agree; I just don't think there's any reasonable way to do this algorithmically. No matter what you attempt to measure, it's likely to be gamed.

"Good" defined by being validated by other community members (e.g. was the post closed/reopened?) We'd put some work into finding a reasonable way to define "good".

For instance, "voting with the masses" seems to be a solid bet -- If you VTC on something that already has 3 or 4 votes, it's very unlikely to be "overturned" unless it's a contentious post (close/reopen/close cycle), which is pretty rare on most sites.

Again, in this case, it's far easier (and faster) to vote than to attempt to answer or edit, even when warranted.

Catija, you may remember me (or perhaps not) as having recently requested three-vote-close on Ask Ubuntu. I've since changed my mind on this, after having hit 3k rep myself there and seeing the (IMHO) poor quality of close-vote reviews there.

Unlocked by voting to close/reopen (including reviews)

Two problems with this:

• First, the number of reviews someone has done does not make them an expert in all topics on a particular site. Even gold badge expertise isn't a good indicator. The knowledge needed to judge (and answer) a question is often not based on "general knowledge" in a subject area, but specialized knowledge in the topic being discussed.

  For example, a gold-badge holder in the "Windows" tag on Super User may (but more likely, may not) have expertise in (to take a random example), Gimp. A Windows Gimp question may even appear unclear to them, but perfectly clear to someone strongly familiar with that particular application.

  The same goes for someone who has voted on 1000 posts across the site. That should give their review of a Gimp question no more (or less) weight than anyone else.

  And this doesn't seem to be a "corner-case" to me. I very often find "Needs clarity" close-votes on posts that are perfectly clear to me (or at least salvageable by edit).

• The second problem is that this just makes people rush through reviews even faster, further reducing the quality. For instance, voting to close because a "quick read" of something is "needs details or clarity" is far easier than editing it to make it more clear and readable. I rarely hit my review cap during any given day primarily because I spend more time editing (and sometimes even answering) posts there that others have been VTC'ing as "Needs details or clarity."

  Encouraging reviewers to "rush" their reviews in order to reach "trusted reviewer" status more quickly clearly has the side-effect of reducing the time spent and (by extension) the quality of those reviews.

Whether someone's reviews were actually "good" and whether someone should be able to robo-review and still get this privilege is a concern to me. I don't think they should.

I agree; I just don't think there's any reasonable way to do this algorithmically. No matter what you attempt to measure, it's likely to be gamed.

"Good" defined by being validated by other community members (e.g. was the post closed/reopened?) We'd put some work into finding a reasonable way to define "good".

For instance, "voting with the masses" seems to be a solid bet -- If you VTC on something that already has 3 or 4 votes, it's very unlikely to be "overturned" unless it's a contentious post (close/reopen/close cycle), which is pretty rare on most sites.

Again, in this case, it's far easier (and faster) to vote than to attempt to answer or edit, even when warranted.