Timeline for Reviewers should be able to communicate with each other about a review task
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
54 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 25, 2023 at 1:28 | history | edited | mathlander |
[Edit removed during grace period]
|
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 5:31 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| S Feb 24, 2023 at 5:25 | vote | accept | mathlander | ||
| Feb 24, 2023 at 5:24 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 451 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 5:12 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 32 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 5:12 | history | rollback | mathlander |
Rollback to Revision 31
|
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 5:11 | answer | added | starball | timeline score: 6 | |
| Feb 24, 2023 at 5:06 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 43 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 5:00 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 114 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 4:54 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 706 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 4:39 | comment | added | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | @mathlander Tags should only be used on a question if the question is fundamentally about it, not merely if it mentions that topic. The main point of this request is about special review comments; comment abuse is only mentioned tangentially. Also, if no questions exist about a tag's topic, one should hold off on creating that tag until one or more questions have been asked about it. | |
| Feb 24, 2023 at 4:31 | history | edited | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 4:25 | vote | accept | mathlander | ||
| S Feb 24, 2023 at 5:25 | |||||
| Feb 24, 2023 at 4:24 | history | edited | starball | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 234 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 4:12 | answer | added | starball | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 24, 2023 at 3:51 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 200 characters in body; edited title
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 3:42 | history | edited | mathlander |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 3:26 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 99 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 3:24 | comment | added | mathlander | I think the policies should still be listed for good measure. | |
| Feb 24, 2023 at 3:19 | comment | added | starball | As for your section on Policies regarding review comments, I personally don't see the need to say all that. You're repeating the essence of guidance that we already have for regular comments and any form of communication on the network. I'd just leave it at that. | |
| Feb 24, 2023 at 3:15 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 360 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 3:12 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 245 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 2:35 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 2:28 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Feb 24, 2023 at 0:23 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
removed subjective point
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 23:55 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 403 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 23:44 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 399 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 23:39 | comment | added | mathlander | @ColleenV It should be specific to the people who reviewed the post (to avoid abuse). Also, the OP can always go in and upvote review comments that support his post, flag the other comments, and abuse the system in other ways, leading to bad reviews. Such comment sections might also be hostile to the post, and if the OP sees the comment section, he might quit the site entirely. | |
| Feb 23, 2023 at 23:36 | comment | added | ColleenV | Reviewers of a post should be able to comment on the post in a separate comment section only visible to the reviewers and the moderators. So the author of the post doesn’t get to see the discussion about their post? When you say “the reviewers” do you mean people with the privilege to review in that queue or just the 3-5 people that saw that particular post in the queue? | |
| Feb 23, 2023 at 22:58 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 22:51 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body; edited title
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 21:21 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 48 characters in body; edited title
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 20:59 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 217 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 20:19 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 538 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 20:14 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 538 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 20:08 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 538 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 18:38 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 18:31 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 91 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 18:25 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 495 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 18:23 | comment | added | ColleenV | The design should meet the requirements. Whether that is slightly different or very different is unknown because we probably haven't finished gathering requirements. What if it looks like chat more than it looks like comments? What if reviewers could add items to a checklist of things an author could do to prevent their question from being closed? Are the requirements for the close/reopen queue the same as for the low quality queue? Honestly I don't mean to discourage you... I should be working on my own stuff right now and am typing a bit hastily. | |
| Feb 23, 2023 at 18:21 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 495 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 18:19 | comment | added | mathlander | @ColleenV The design should be slightly different so that the intended use of the system is not treated as abuse. | |
| Feb 23, 2023 at 18:17 | comment | added | ColleenV | Basically, my beef here is the "Let's just take this system we're already abusing and copy the same design to a different spot to make it easier to pretend it meets our requirements" approach. I don't mean that to sound harsh, because we all would rather post a solution than just give our requirements for a solution and let someone else figure it out. That's just human nature. I find myself doing it all the time even though I have been trained in requirements gathering :) | |
| Feb 23, 2023 at 18:16 | comment | added | mathlander | @ColleenV I added the archivation and the OP being able to see review comments. | |
| Feb 23, 2023 at 18:16 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 495 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 18:14 | comment | added | ColleenV | I think it would be better to list the requirements and let the folks that know the code figure out exactly how to do it. We need review comments separated from other sorts of discussion and presented in context. The review comments probably need to be archived after the review task is completed so as not to get confused with any subsequent reviews or different types of review. It might be useful if the author of the post could participate in the review discussion to ask for clarification. I could probably come up with a couple more constraints/requirements if I thought about it. | |
| Feb 23, 2023 at 18:10 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 495 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 18:02 | comment | added | mathlander | If the new system is complicated, then the current comment system would be abused. | |
| Feb 23, 2023 at 17:59 | comment | added | mathlander | @ColleenV This system makes sure that the reviewers see the comments. It is also by far the simplest solution. | |
| Feb 23, 2023 at 17:55 | comment | added | ColleenV | I think it is an interesting idea, but the solution to a broken comment system is not to create a new parallel comment system every time we need to use it for something it was never designed to do. I agree that we need some way for reviewers to share information while the post is under review and that abusing the current comment system is not a great solution for that. I think we can figure out a better solution. | |
| Feb 23, 2023 at 17:36 | history | edited | Shadow Wizard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Tags have their own place, not in the title
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 16:49 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 75 characters in body; edited title
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 16:36 | history | edited | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 470 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2023 at 16:28 | history | asked | mathlander | CC BY-SA 4.0 |