The current review system encourages faux reviews: some people upvote everything rather than actually fixing it
Since Sunday the new review queue has less than 10 posts in average in the First Posts and Late Answers.
I noted that sometimes reviews enter in a "fast mode" where people do fast things (like upvoting/downvoting or small edits) and ignore some things that should be fixed like:
- Extremely poor English (both grammar, repeated information and punctuation)
- Extremely bad code format (e.g. using
>instead of four spaces, too many backspaces that wrap the code in a horizontal scroll, etc.)
- Or even wrong/incomplete tags
The last case I saw was this one. I have started my edit before the Yaroslav's edit was finished, but despite this poor formatting (even with text at the end that didn't belong to the code) this post was reviewed by another user without a single change in the post (Yaroslav didn't use the "review" function, probably saw this post and just edited it).
The way I see this could be improved by doing some sort of checklist that transfers the responsibility to the user that is reviewing. Before someone could do "I'm done" it would have to check a list like:
- Does this user deserve an upvote/downvote?
- Does this post need more editing?
Note that if I edited a post then the checklist could be automatically selected (and I could deselected if I believe by editing wasn't enough).
If some of the checklists items weren't set to check then the post would go back into the review queue and someone could review the rest (and see the current "status" of the checklist).