The requirement for having the review link appear in the top menu newly got raised from 200 reputation to 1000 reputation. This makes sense in that experienced users rather than inexperienced users should be encouraged to review.

But there are cases where the requirement doesn't make sense because the relevant experience is not solely reflected by the amount of reputation. A user who has achieved a high flag weight but has less than 1000 reputation should also be experienced enough to be encouraged to review. So, I suggest that the review link should appear in the top menu not only for anyone with at least 1000 reputation but also for anyone with the Deputy badge, i.e. anyone who has achieved a flag weight of 500 (which should mean that they know how to review and flag appropriately).

One might wonder how many users with less than 1000 reputation that has the Deputy badge. This can be inquired by using the Data Explorer. Here's the result for some sites:

Even if these are not great numbers it makes sense to encourage these users to review because them having the Deputy badge implies that know how to review and flag appropriately and, thus, they should be encourage to review because helps improve the quality of sites.

  • 2
    I think strunk and white fits better for an exception
    – waffles
    Nov 3, 2011 at 13:25
  • @waffles You've got a point. I think rather that either Deputy or Strunk & White should be the exception since both reflect what the review page is for (flagging and editing for quality control).
    – N.N.
    Nov 3, 2011 at 14:30
  • 1
    As much as it pains me that I've temporarily lost the privilege of doing other people's work for free, this is about as much as I'm going to fight for it.
    – robots.jpg
    Nov 3, 2011 at 19:45
  • 1
    @robots.jpg You have not lost the privilege but the link in the top menu (even if that it's important). You can still review via stackoverflow.com/review.
    – N.N.
    Nov 3, 2011 at 19:54
  • @yoda That question is far more general. I'd say it's related but not a duplicate.
    – N.N.
    Nov 7, 2011 at 12:02
  • @Ennael Everyone with downvote rights can see the review link since the last update, see meta.stackexchange.com/questions/110935/…
    – N.N.
    Nov 7, 2011 at 19:31
  • You're right -- I caught it right after I posted (sorry, didn't delete it fast enough). :)
    – Ennael
    Nov 7, 2011 at 19:33

3 Answers 3


I think we should open /review up to all people with Strunk & White and leave it completely shut for any users with less than 125 rep, including making it not accessible via the URL.

In fact, I could be persuaded to only allow people with Strunk & White access to review and suggested edit approval.

As our sites grow, they struggle with quality. Editing is one of the most effective ways of improving quality. Suggested edits are trivial to process.

Flagging is easy, it improves the site, we need lots of it. However, it is an act that causes work as opposed to consuming work.

I want seasoned editors consuming the /review queue, that way we know they are able to clean up the mess where needed as opposed to flagging stuff with "clean up the mess for me".

"Editing stuff" is a better game to play than "flagging stuff". People should play the "flagging stuff" game as a side game to "editing stuff"

Today I added the "reviewer" badge, you need Strunk & White to get it and big pile of reviews. The review stats are suppressed for people without Strunk & White, though they can still see the page at the moment provided they have 125 rep.

If you do not have Strunk & White, you get a nice progress screen showing you when it will unlock in 'review'

  • Editing cannot solve some things flagging can, e.g. answers that should've been comments or new questions. If someone has the Deputy badge they should know how to flag appropriately (due to the nature of flag weight in that it's subtracted on declined flags) and thus not cause unnecessary work for the moderators.
    – N.N.
    Nov 4, 2011 at 7:47
  • I am not disputing the value of flagging or the deputy badge, I am just saying we need more editing and in a couple of days almost anyone could find 80 things that need editing ... this should be your trial by fire for getting access to review imo
    – waffles
    Nov 4, 2011 at 7:53
  • Finding 80 things to edit, getting a flag weight of 500 or 1000 reputation is not trivial on smaller sites (e.g. TeX-SX). Therefore I think it will be more appropriate to require either badge. Also, I don't think it makes sense to make the review page unavailable for anyone not satisfying some requirement. See my suggestion (answer).
    – N.N.
    Nov 4, 2011 at 8:04
  • I am willing to adjust for smaller sites, however I want the focus to be on editing as opposed to flagging (which I agree is important)
    – waffles
    Nov 4, 2011 at 8:11
  • 1
    While I completely support this, I don't quite understand which criteria you propose to be the more important one. i.e. What happens to people with S&W and <1k rep?
    – John
    Nov 5, 2011 at 4:20

I'm not really sure that such a rather small number of users are a good reason to complicate the rules.

Additionally there's something to be said about requiring reputation: You can gain flag weight by not participating visibly with the community. You flag problematic items and pretty much stay behind the scenes (no content of yours will is visible permanently on the site).

On the other hand, to earn 1000 reputation, you probably need to interact visibly with the community: At least you need to submit edits, but it's somewhat more likely that you actively posted questions and/or answers to reach that score. This means that your contributions can be commented on, voted on and even flagged, if necessary. This provides a much deeper interaction and much more chances to learn the (written and unwritten) rules.

So while flag weight (and the Deputy badge) are certainly something to show, I don't think it's everything. And for someone who wants to participlate (i.e. someone who wants that privilege), reaching 1000 reputation should be an easily reachable goal.

  • But why require 1000 reputation for those who flag perfectly well (i.e. those with the Deputy badge)? Appropriate flagging helps to improve the quality of sites so I think it makes sense to encourage it. Adding one condition to the rules doesn't make them complex, they'd still be straightforward.
    – N.N.
    Nov 3, 2011 at 12:00
  • 4
    @N.N.: because flagging alone is not everything this site is all about. And requiring some level of interaction outside of flagging is a good idea (in my opinion). Nov 3, 2011 at 12:04
  • 1
    But the community relies on the division of labour. People's preference of how they want to use the sites differ. Some may focus on answering, some may focus on reading and voting, some may focus on reviewing and some may focus on the chat. People should be able to use the site as they want and be encouraged appropriately.
    – N.N.
    Nov 3, 2011 at 12:10
  • 1
    @N.N.: should they? If everyone should be entirely free how they use the site, then we wouldn't need the concept of privileges at all. Reputation is the primary way of measuring how much the site "trusts" you (i.e. how much power it is willing to give to you). Unless there is a strong argument that this is not sufficient, I see no reason to change that. And frankly: 89 review links more or less is not a strong argument. Nov 3, 2011 at 12:18
  • "Free" as in "free within the current restrictions" of course. I think it is a strong argument because the potential future flags of 89 users are not to be underestimated.
    – N.N.
    Nov 3, 2011 at 12:24

I think the review link should appear for anyone with the Deputy badge or the Strunk & White badge even though they have less than 1000 reputation. People with one or both of those badges should be knowledgeable in reviewing and not cause any unnecessary work for the moderators.

It makes no sense to make the review page unavailable for anyone not satisfying some requirement. Those who find the page without a link to it should be knowledgeable enough to use it.

A strong reason for both of these points is the division of labour. People's preference of how they want to contribute may differ. Some may focus on answering, some may focus on reading and voting, some may focus on editing, some may focus on flagging and some may focus on the chat. Thus, if someone has shown proficiency at some appropriate task they should be encouraged.

You must log in to answer this question.

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