Sometimes, we spent (quite) some time on a post only to find nobody cares to vote on it in any way. Sometimes, a happy voter to come along and makes you happy; other times, your post is left in the dark.

I think that allowing people to vote using a review queue could help in getting people more feedback on their posts through votes, it could help turn

Hey guys? Did anyone see my post? Why don't I get any points?


Oh cool, 2 point for my answer. People like it.
Oh damn, -2 point for my question. My question is probably not clear enough...

Let's encourage voting some more...

  • 16
    Wouldn't such a queue be far too long? – Daniel Fischer Jun 25 '12 at 13:35
  • 4
    @DanielFischer: That would be a good indication of how big the problem is. In any case, just show the newest ones like how the other review queues work. I don't think length is an issue that can't be easily solved programmatically... – Tamara Wijsman Jun 25 '12 at 13:36
  • @TomWijsman you will need more votes – soandos Jun 25 '12 at 13:37
  • @soandos: That could be possible, but perhaps we can ask for increasing the vote limit and implementing it so that the same votes can't be given to the same people more than X times a day. A solution to both vote fraud and why the vote limit is in place the first way. Perhaps if they put it a bit higher it would support the reviewing without allowing to "mass vote everything using a script"... – Tamara Wijsman Jun 25 '12 at 13:39
  • 5
    the unsung hero badge would become extinct :P – Lix Jun 25 '12 at 14:17
  • um doesn't the bounty system already do this – Some Helpful Commenter Jun 25 '12 at 14:24
  • 1
    @SomeHelpfulCommenter: No, it doesn't. The bounty system draws attention to get people to answer a question, however, this requests asks something completely different; namely gaining more feedback for posts through voting, because around one third of the posts aren't voted on (if I look through my profile, statistics from the devs could give a more realistic number). – Tamara Wijsman Jun 25 '12 at 14:44
  • @TomWijsman for what its worth you actually don't need the devs since this data is available. Here's the Zero Score Ratios for StackOverFlow and SuperUser You should note that are nearly 4,000,000 posts in SO that have a zero vote – Some Helpful Commenter Jun 25 '12 at 15:11
  • @SomeHelpfulCommenter: Oh right, thanks. Seems one third was a near enough guess... – Tamara Wijsman Jun 25 '12 at 16:10
  • @Lix I would say that would be a good thing. The Unsung Hero badge was meant as some sort of second-string replacement for people who frequented low-density tags or just were unlucky in getting votes. Although to be honest, the sheer number of questions/answers that would fall into this category might just make such a queue superfluous. – Yawus Jul 18 '12 at 20:34
  • FYI, about 60% of questions and 46% of answers from the last quarter have a score of 0 (when considering open questions only) – Brad Mace Aug 12 '12 at 4:40
  • Overall, 46% of questions and 37% of answers have a score of zero, again ignoring closed questions. – Brad Mace Aug 12 '12 at 5:01

I don't see this as being important enough to warrant a task or the massive resources it would take to build this list. As stated in the comments, there are around 4,000,000 posts which would qualify for this list. Only a small percentage of those would be relevant to a specific user and an even smaller percentage voteable by that same user. That's a very small margin of usefulness.

How many people would even see it?

Thinking about how the review system works, it takes two people to mark something as "reviewed." So really, only two people would ever look at it, right? Using the review beta system, you'd have four options:

  • Upvote - This post is useful
  • Downvote - This post is not useful
  • Do Not Vote - This post is not particularly useful or not useful.
  • Not Sure - I'm not really qualified to vote on this.

Sure, as long as people keep clicking Not Sure, people will continue to see it, but it only takes two actions to clear it out of the list. What happens if those two people Do Not Vote on it either? Do you just leave it in the list until two people do vote on it? That would imply that all posts should have at least two votes on them, which doesn't make much sense.

Just because a post has a score of zero doesn't mean it's a bad post. I personally only vote up a post when I feel it deserves another upvote. It may be subjective, but it works for me. I've even been known to downvote a post merely because "this post has too many upvotes and I don't feel it deserves that many."

You also can't forget about all the anonymous visitors that might run across your question and still find it helpful. They can provide anonymous feedback as well. Ultimately, you're not posting content just to get upvotes, you're posting it to help people. As long as you don't start receiving downvotes on it, then it's probably helping someone.

How does this accomplish the goal of reviewing?

All of the existing review tasks are meant to help clean up the site, not find things to vote on. Every task in there is meant to find and get rid of the crap and keep the good stuff. How would this achieve that goal at all? A post not having any votes just doesn't mean anything.

Is the review system even a good fit?

There are tons of answers out there which were posted after another answer but say the exact same thing. These answers most often don't get voted upon because they're not incorrect, but there is another, better answer that already covers the information. Yet seeing the answer show up in the review panel, you wouldn't have any clue about that, because it would only show that answer. Why would I want to upvote some random answer when there is a better answer on that question which I would rather upvote?

The review system just doesn't fit well with this kind of voting motivation. It would only make sense to show answers together with all the other answers on the question. Then you also need to see the question to tell if the answers even answer the question. So basically, you need to see the entire question and all its answers to make an adequate decision on whether to upvote an answer (not so much for the question itself). This would be helpful for upvoting one or two answers to the top of a long list of answers that have no score yet, but isn't that kind of what the Unanswered questions tab is for?

How does this increase visibility?

It doesn't. The posts wouldn't be any more visible than they would be as if they were listed on the home page or on some other list throughout the site. What really gets people to come view a question is a) interesting tags, b) an interesting excerpt, and most importantly c) an outstanding and descriptive title. Without those, of course the question won't get many views, and naturally not many votes on it or its answers. If you want more visibility, there are things you, as a user, can do to help that:

  • Edit the question to improve its content and title and make sure it's tagged appropriately.
  • Offer a bounty on the question to attract more attention.
  • Share the link to the question or answer with your friends, on your blog, or wherever else you might converse with people on a regular basis.
  • 1
    Massive resources is an overstatement. By now, the review system should have been written in a way that supports code reuse. Filling in the "has been reviewed" and "has not been reviewed" policies for such a list should be near trivial to accomplish, given the amount of queries they have written adding a bit more doesn't take a massive amount of time. Thinking about how the new review beta system works, the working of the "not sure" button would exactly work well for this. There is no implication that posts should have at least two votes, because people aren't forced to vote... – Tamara Wijsman Jul 18 '12 at 16:55
  • This feature request isn't meant to clean crap, but rather provide feedback and get people to vote more; because one third of the posts (see comments to above Q) are at 0. This perhaps even might make -2 or +2 a good goal, negatively voted post could even help fill the Low Quality Posts queue whereas positively voted ones could lower their LQP queue priority. Your last paragraph is an exception I agree with. That's actually a problem with the current review beta as well, which they are trying to work out well. There's a necessity for context, but it has to be shown right to not be confusing... – Tamara Wijsman Jul 18 '12 at 17:01
  • 1
    We don't want a goal of +2 or -2. A post that has a score of 0 most likely has a score of 0 because no one feels it's deserving of a vote. It's not bad but it's not good enough. It's just there. Also, LQP has nothing to do with having votes on the question. It's solely based on the calculated score that the post receives. Posts that have a score of 20 can still be flagged as LQP if they're only a one-line answer. As for review beta, you're forgetting one option: Do Not Vote. I have a very strong feeling that button would be most used and this feature would not accomplish anything. – animuson Jul 18 '12 at 17:49
  • How would you know whether they do or don't deserve votes if the post is barely seen by frequent voters? Attention is the problem here, whether to put a goal or whether they deserve votes are afterthoughts. The quality of a post does have an influence on its score, someone who quotes something useful from a W3 standard which a ton of people didn't know about would be at +20 whereas someone who quotes non-sense from W3Schools won't even make it up to half that score or just gets outright downvoted. I'm not forgetting that option, it's called "not sure" and actually works pretty well for this. – Tamara Wijsman Jul 18 '12 at 18:35
  • No, both options Not Sure and Do Not Vote have to exist. Saying not sure means you don't know if it deserves a vote or not. Saying Do Not Vote means this post doesn't deserve a vote. Very different things, and I would click that button pretty much every single time. I disagree that just putting a bunch of questions into a list to vote on is helpful in any way. That question in your screenshot was only 9 hours old and the answer only 3 at the time you took it. Now it does have votes. No review task needed. – animuson Jul 18 '12 at 18:40
  • There would be no difference between clicking the buttons in the end result though, it doesn't matter how you name it. If you don't care to give feedback then that's your thing. As for the question that you have linked, 2 out of the 3 votes are mine because I have actually reviewed that example question... ;) – Tamara Wijsman Jul 18 '12 at 18:52

Feedback isn't really the point of StackExchange though is it? If you've run by and made a post hoping to accomplish something other than get some help, or potentially help one or more other people by posting a clear answer, you're probably doing it wrong.

We already have a badge to reward voting on questions (an activity oft overlooked by some of the best of us).

We can also already pull up a list of the most recent (or most upvoted) questions without any upvoted answers. Do we need to have yet another queue, just so people who probably aren't knowledgeable and/or interested at all in the precise subject area of the question (hence why they wouldn't have opened the question in the first place) feel compelled to vote on them one way or another? The edit queues are bad enough for being full of people randomly handing out unwarranted approval in many cases.

  • 2
    Hey, it's been 4 minutes and nobody has voted on my post yet! How am I supposed to know whether it's controversial or not. – TCPMAN.EXE Jul 18 '12 at 19:07
  • 1
    -1 since you appear to really need feedback. – Servy Jul 18 '12 at 19:10
  • +1 for linking the "have no upvoted answers" list, that one is often forgotten about. – Tamara Wijsman Jul 18 '12 at 19:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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