22

When a user is finished reviewing a queue or his daily review quota is met, he is presented with a minimally helpful page containing an appropriate message:

There are no items for you to review.

or

Thank you for reviewing ## {foo} today; come back in # hour{s} to continue reviewing.

More than likely, the user immediately clicks the review link again to go to the main review queues page to check the counts of other queues (or even the same queue). I know I do, and if anyone can provide behavior statistics to confirm it, that would help this case.

A more user-friendly behavior would be to do the following:

After reviewing items, when there are no items left to review or the quota is met for a particular queue, present the same numerical queue data shown on the main review queues page instead of showing the existing minimal page containing only the informative message.

If this change is implemented:

In the case there were no items left to review in the particular queue, the potential 0 next to the queue already informs the user no more items are left in the queue to review, and the user had been presented with the potential review count before entering the review queue. I emphasized potential, as several times I have been presented with the "There are no items for you to review" message and between the time I read it and click back to review queues page, more items qualified for review for that particular queue. Optionally, if there is a programmatic certainty the queue count will be 0 when the page is presented, display the "There are no items for you to review in the {foo} queue" at the top of the page.

In the case the quota was met, no such message is necessary, as the appropriate informative message is already presented next to the associated queue.

  • 8
    Yes... YES.... YES ! – ʞunɥdɐpɐɥd May 24 '13 at 15:50
  • 5
    The problem is that the number is cached. Sometimes, the number is 0 and there are reviews to be made, and sometimes the number is not 0 and there are no more reviews to be made. Also, I hate being redirected. I often have 2-3 tabs open with different review queue and refresh them manually every 30 seconds or so. I would hate getting redirected everytime to the main page and have to reclick the queue. – Hugo Dozois May 24 '13 at 16:34
  • @Hugo Dozois - So you're saying you keep each queue open in a different page, and even though it says there are no items left to review, if you refresh it, it will present an item? Is that a semi-secret super-user tactic to snipe queue items? – JoshDM May 24 '13 at 16:36
  • 1
    I don't think it's a secret! There is a even a feature-request for a refresh button on that page. Just that the review page is cached and thus refreshing directly the queue is better than looking at old numbers! – Hugo Dozois May 24 '13 at 16:37
  • Well if it's not a secret, it's not obvious, and you can tell that some users (obviously myself, recently just over 2k rep and likely @PhaDaPhunk also just over 2k rep) probably didn't know the trick. till you made your earlier post. I had been wondering how so many users were scoring so many 20 Late Answers / Low Quality Posts on a daily basis. – JoshDM May 24 '13 at 16:50
  • 1
    you're right, let's not give away any other "secrets of the trade", eh? :P – ronalchn May 25 '13 at 0:37
  • It does not have to be a redirect. The queues could be presented on the page in place of where a potential reviewable item would appear. If there is no item to present or quota is met, show queues. If there is an item to present, show item. Page refresh may potentially replace view of queues with a reviewable item. – JoshDM May 25 '13 at 3:39
  • Adjusted the proposal so it no longer redirects; instead, the empty lower space would now contain the queue count data. – JoshDM May 30 '13 at 17:30
  • More instant access to new review items? It's just not that important. The only queue that requires speeding up is the close vote queue. (When you get to it, please be as keen with it as you are with these nearly-empty queues.) – AndrewC May 30 '13 at 17:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .