40

Today we rolled out a few features that make using the /review path way more productive. see: Allow marking posts as reviewed on /review and hide them.

I think it would be fitting to add a new bronze badge called "reviewer" for people who participate in the review process.

In particular I think it should go deeper than just expecting people to click the "review question" button. Perhaps require a minimum of 'N' actioned items (list of possible actions are in the drop down)

Any thoughts on badge description / criteria?

|improve this question
29

Reviewer: 300 reviews, over 60 actioned.

(possibly) Scrutiniser: 1000 reviews, over 300 actioned.

Where actioned is:

  • Edit (suggested edits don't count until approved)
  • Flagged (only counts if the flag is marked as valid/helpful).
  • Voted to close (only counts if the question is closed).
  • Voted Up or Down on the post (only counts while the post is not deleted).

Note: to even be considered for "Reviewer" you will need "Strunk & White". See: /review if you do not have "Strunk & White" yet.

|improve this answer
  • 1
    note, I really want to encourage all the possible actions, voting is critical on questions/answers from new accounts – waffles Oct 31 '11 at 10:16
  • Thought I might have forgot something. – Brian Reichle Oct 31 '11 at 10:18
  • 1
    Also, you may want to omit rewarding for vote if the vote was cast upon a post which was also (validly) flagged. Otherwise it would be possible to upvote bad posts which will obviously be closed and/or deleted anyway to farm points for this badge. – Goran Jovic Oct 31 '11 at 11:12
  • 1
    @Goran: I like the idea but it may complicate tracking and transparincy. The other two are essentially invalid until verified (an event the users can see) where as the votes would be valid until a flag against the post is accepted (not visible to the voting user). Maybe just say the votes only count while the voted post is not deleted. This would also keep it inline with other parts of the system. – Brian Reichle Oct 31 '11 at 11:25
  • I wonder if stipulating that "no one type of action may count for more than 45% of the total actions" is over complicating it? – Brian Reichle Oct 31 '11 at 11:56
  • What about saying that there must be at least 20 actions of each type, as well as the total 150 actions. – Ian Ringrose Nov 4 '11 at 10:00
  • @IanRingrose Not a good idea IMO, it'd limit the badge to 10k+ users. Unless I misunderstand the "deleted" column, in which case it'd limit the badge to moderators. – a cat Nov 4 '11 at 11:31
  • 3
    @lunboks, I was only thinking of the categories listed in the answer when I suggested the cap (3 categories at the time I said 45%) and I imagine Ian was only considering the 4 categorise when he suggested a minimum of 20 per category. I didn't include deleting in the list because (aside from the rep requirement you mentioned) deleting by mortals requires the question to be closed for a period which would presumably remove it from the review list. – Brian Reichle Nov 4 '11 at 11:46
  • @BrianReichle Ah, I see. Though that'd still limit it to 3k+. – a cat Nov 4 '11 at 12:48
  • @lunboks, in the case of the minimum, yes, it would. In the case of a cap, it would (depending on the actual cap) only limit it to established users (1k). I think the minimum is easier to describe in clear terms, but I prefer the mechanics of the cap. Either way I think we need "something" to encourage multiple action types. – Brian Reichle Nov 4 '11 at 13:23
  • How about 'Scrutineer' for the second badge name? – martin clayton Nov 4 '11 at 14:39
  • Just about to add reviewer ... deferring scrutiniser for a bit – waffles Nov 7 '11 at 4:37
  • @waffles nice, thanks! How come nobody has this badge yet? Other new badges were granted retroactively, didn't they? – ShaWiz Nov 7 '11 at 11:30
  • @shadow it is a surprisingly hard badge to get, I am only half way there – waffles Nov 7 '11 at 11:43
  • @waffles hmm.. so why not reduce the requirements? For example the bronze badge will be awarded for 100 reviews, 20 of them actioned, 300 and 60 will grant silver badge. Bronze badge should not be so hard to get IMO. – ShaWiz Nov 7 '11 at 11:44
20

Originally I thought a bronze makes sense here. But in retrospect I do not.

Getting full access to review is now a hard enough task, you need Strunk & White and it helps lots if you have enough rep to really act on the stuff.

Introducing a bronze badge here is odd. Traditionally bronze badges are "welcome to the system" badges. However in this case, to be welcomed to the system you need Strunk & White anyway.

Initially I added reviewer as a bronze badge, but it is just too hard for a bronze.

Instead, we are changing reviewer to silver and upping it to 1000 reviews / 200 actions. Actions are described in Brian's answer.

|improve this answer
  • Will it be revoked from current badge holders until they meet the new requirement? I see that there are three of them. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Nov 8 '11 at 4:46
  • Yeah ... I will revoke it ... with a very sincere apology for messing up – waffles Nov 8 '11 at 5:01
  • Does the list of actions include commenting? That's not in Brian's answer but is in the sidebar list. – waiwai933 Nov 8 '11 at 6:20
  • yes commenting is included @waiwai933 – waffles Nov 8 '11 at 6:21
  • I was deliberating bringing up these exact reasons. +1. – John Nov 8 '11 at 6:52
  • As an aside, if bronze badges are supposed to be "welcome to the system" tokens, then I don't get why Proofreader exists. You need 5k+ rep to begin with, and it's pretty uncommon for there to be any suggested edits to review at all. (I imagine it's easier on SO, what with the massive activity and the consensus voting and all.) – a cat Nov 9 '11 at 17:47
  • I agree @lunboks proofreader is an odd badge, we should probably up the req and make it silver. Approved first suggested edit seems more apt for a bronze, please raise a meta q. – waffles Nov 9 '11 at 20:06
  • @waffles Done. – a cat Nov 9 '11 at 20:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .