# Encourage users to edit first posts, with a badge

We should be encouraging the First Posts reviewers to improve the posts they are reviewing. After all, that's the point of review. There are currently several options available to First Posts reviewers: commenting, voting, skipping, flagging, and editing.

As it stands, this queue drains fast, which is good. However, there is an unintended side effect: those whose reviews require time (e.g. by editing) will unintentionally be 'punished', as the queue will be drained by the time they are done. Ergo, users who do better reviews earn review badges slower. As a result, users are unintentionally encouraged to select No action needed, or other quick actions like downvoting.

I propose a badge to help alleviate this problem, and encourage users to spend more time on reviews. The text of the badge reads:

Suggested edits to or edited First Posts 150 times, 95% of which were approved.

I think this should be a silver badge. While the bar is high, this is a feasible badge for many new users, as there are plenty of first posts. This encourages users to, y'know, actually take time to improve First Posts. As has been said before, the first posts queue is rather ineffective. Theoretically, this should increase its effectiveness, as people will be encouraged to spend more time on each review..

Thoughts? (I haven't thought of a name yet, but that's just me being lazy.)

Raised concerns:

Won't users just make small edits to inflate their edit count? Most users' edits will go into the Suggested Edits review queue, where they will be rejected if they are too minor. Repeated offenses lead to an edit ban, which would ultimately discourage minor edits.

This couples with the idea that, if there is anything else wrong with a post, edits which just remove signatures should be rejected as too minor. Additionally, edits which just capitalize a word or three should also be rejected iff there is anything else to be improved.

Aren't there enough edit/review badges as is? This precludes the option that an additional badge could actually be helpful. Each suggestion should be judged based off its own merits. If this badge would be helpful, it's irrelevant how many badges currently exist. Therefore, I don't think this is a useful point to make.

• So you're proposing adding another badge to solve a problem related to robo-reviewers trying to get a shiny badge? – Mat Apr 28 '13 at 4:58
• @Mat It's hard to write a script that makes edits to a post. – Aza Apr 28 '13 at 4:59
• @KnightswhosayNi What he meant was, people are reviewing as fast as possible (like a robot) to earn the badges and they will similarly make small edits in order to earn your new badge – jamylak Apr 28 '13 at 5:04
• @jamylak And if those edits are too minor, as per the Suggested Edits review queue, they will be rejected. If users make too many minor edits, they will get an edit ban. – Aza Apr 28 '13 at 5:05
• @KnightswhosayNi First thing that comes to mind, everybody will just remove the signature from each question that has one – jamylak Apr 28 '13 at 5:06
• @jamylak I personally reject those edits as too minor, if there's anything else wrong with the post. – Aza Apr 28 '13 at 5:08
• Who's to say that everyone does? (I reject, but not everyone...) – Cole Johnson Apr 28 '13 at 5:25
• @ColeJohnson I suppose I'm slightly more optimistic about people. I look through my suggested edits regularly to see which ones didn't go how I thought they should, and I've noticed that people tend not to do that. Circumstantial, admittedly, but worth something. – Aza Apr 28 '13 at 6:04

There's already enough incentive in the review queues that people are watching them with a goal of getting a shiny badge. That's perfectly human, but that's not what the queues are meant for.

You say some of the review queues drain fast, and that's a problem because people watching these queues are "punished" when they take a while to act. That, in my opinion, is completely the wrong way to look at it. The problem is that people aren't punished enough for taking quick actions blindly just to get their badge counter up. Review audits probably help a bit, but what is needed in my opinion is more in that direction rather than more incentives to "get my stats up quickly".

The goal when reviewing should be to make the site a better place. There's a nice side-effect of earning shiny things when you do it right. And people who review in that mindset shouldn't be upset when there's nothing left to review - that's just a sign that things are running smoothly and the community is doing its job. An empty queue is no punishment.

There are eight badges related to editing. That's quite a lot already. We really do not need an influx of suggested edits that come from people just trying to get shiny stuff, or serial minor edits from people going for another milestone towards Copy Editor.

• A point: I never said that the overall problem was because people are "punished" for taking their time; rather, that was a side effect of the queue draining quickly. I do understand your other points, though. – Aza Apr 28 '13 at 5:26
• I don't understand the difference. Their taking a while is what makes the queue draining fast a "problem" (as far as I understand "As it stands, this queue drains fast. This inherently punishes people for actions which take a while"). – Mat Apr 28 '13 at 5:30
• I don't see the queue draining fast as a problem at all. I think you misunderstand my point in that respect. – Aza Apr 28 '13 at 5:31
• If the queue draining fast isn't a "problem", why is taking long actions "punished" by the current system? Your whole question becomes invalid if the fast-draining queue isn't a problem. – Mat Apr 28 '13 at 5:34
• It's not that the fast-draining queue is a problem. That is good. I like empty queues. However, it is symptomatic of people not taking their time. The fast-draining queue is not inherently a problem, it's symptomatic of one. – Aza Apr 28 '13 at 5:36
• That's precisely my point. And you won't solve it by adding even more incentives in the review process. Some people are already cruising through reviews. I don't want more drive-by edits, which your suggestion would encourage. That's more review load, possibly more people temporarily suspended from editing when they probably wouldn't have been otherwise, or more serial minor edits. None of those look appealing to me, at all. – Mat Apr 28 '13 at 5:39
• While that is potentially a valid point, I would counter it by saying those who are suspended from editing will learn a lesson. Additionally, people should be rejecting edits which are too minor. I've made a couple edits to the OP to address these concerns. – Aza Apr 28 '13 at 5:40
• That learned lesson has a price: reviewer workload. And it's based on the assumption that people don't robo-approve in the suggested edit queue. And that assumption, even if it does look slightly better since audits have been implemented, is a bit optimistic. As I've already said in my answer, I do not want any sort of robo-editing to be encouraged in any way. There are already a lot of badges for editing, and AFAICT they're not being actively gamed (or not much). I do not want that to change. – Mat Apr 28 '13 at 5:44
• I don't think people typically robo-approve in the suggested edits queue. I don't see much of that going on. And, again, with good suggested edit review (and I think our suggested edit review is pretty decent), this wouldn't be a problem. – Aza Apr 28 '13 at 5:50
• Additionally, I think the argument that there are already 8 edit badges is inherently flawed, as it precludes the possibility that another edit badge could be a good idea. – Aza Apr 28 '13 at 5:56
• Your last comment doesn't make the slightest sense. I am quite clearly against adding any more editing badges (and review badges), because I do not believe they would help. That's my opinion, as is the rest of my post above. You're free not to agree and post suggestions as you just did. – Mat Apr 28 '13 at 6:03