41

On some review items, I would like to skip them right away, but the skip button is disabled for some time.

Would it be possible not to disable the skip button?

  • For example, when reviewing questions to close, I'd like to skip some questions right away, and not wait for the skip button to become enabled.

Along with that, would it be possible to do opposite for "action" buttons? For actions, current delay feels like a compromise made with the sole purpose to allow for not too painful Skip.

If Skip button is not delayed at all, then longer "actions" delay could hopefully tame review abuse.

|improve this question
  • which review item are you talking about that the skip button is disabled? – psubsee2003 Nov 29 '12 at 9:12
  • 11
    good idea - it often takes me just a second or two to figure that post is out of my area of competence. "learn to love that Skip button" – gnat Nov 29 '12 at 9:13
  • @psubsee2003 The skip button (for example) on this page : stackoverflow.com/review/close – BЈовић Nov 29 '12 at 9:43
  • @BЈовић thanks - reason I asked is I don't see the delay in the first posts or late answers queue (skip is enabled right away), so this must be unique to the close queue. – psubsee2003 Nov 29 '12 at 9:45
  • @psubsee2003 I just tested Close Votes and Suggested Edits - skip is delayed there. Interesting, that it feels opposite for "action" buttons. I mean this delay feels too short for actions - that's probably a compromise made to allow for not too painful Skip – gnat Nov 29 '12 at 9:46
  • 2
    @gnat I see it now. When you first bring up the queue (any queue), the skip button is enabled right away on the first post, but when moving to a new post after taking action (or skipping) the first, the skip button is disabled along with the other buttons. – psubsee2003 Nov 29 '12 at 9:55
  • 2
    @BЈовић how about re-phrasing this request into something like drop delay for "Skip" and increase it for "action" review buttons? Dropping will make Skip more comfortable, plus longer "actions" delay could hopefully tame review abuse – gnat Nov 29 '12 at 10:39
  • 1
    @gnat Sure. Thank you for the suggestion. That would be great. Will you, or should I? :) – BЈовић Nov 29 '12 at 11:04
  • 1
    related (not a duplicate): Is the delay in the activation of the review buttons intentional? – gnat Dec 2 '12 at 22:49
30

I like this idea.

Simply because currently, for me at least, it is a race against the robo upvoters to get to the problematic posts and flag them before they get taken out of the queue. Faster skipping of ok posts (or ones I can't really judge) would really help.

|improve this answer
11
+50

We will no longer delay the skip button after the next build. This is exactly how review originally worked however it was missed in a refactor.

|improve this answer
  • 11
    Could you also increase the duration for the other inputs by a factor of 1.5 perhaps? – Asad Saeeduddin Dec 9 '12 at 18:12
  • 1
    Could we remove Status-completed, since only 1/2 this feature request was actually completed? – user7116 Jun 12 '13 at 14:39
3

I'd make a user script for this, but somehow I think the people that need an increased disabled cooldown the most are the ones that wouldn't install it. I still gave it a go (works because the throttling is entirely client side).

enter image description here

// ==UserScript==
// @name        skipfast
// @namespace   stackoverflow
// @include     http://stackoverflow.com/review*
// @version     1
// ==/UserScript==

$(document).ajaxComplete(function(){
    $('.review-actions input[value="Skip"]').removeAttr("disabled");
});

Alternatively, you could add this as a bookmark and run it once when you go to the review page.

This is a good idea, not least because it makes sure the people with itchy trigger fingers have to wait at least as long as people who are actually reading the post. This would give serious reviewers a chance to actually get a say in the matter.

|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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