5

I have a habit of looking back at suggested edits I've reviewed to see if my decisions tend to be in-keeping with the community and I've noticed an 18k user (pXL) apparently just clicking anything...

(NB: I initially linked the wrong suggested edits. Apologies, corrected)

Looking at the users history, there's 3-4 seconds between each vote, which is probably about as fast as the buttons work.

Obviously the automated tests audits aren't blocking these reviews - so is there any other mechanism to mitigate/prevent this? Perhaps a reporting process?

Failing that, can I suggest that perhaps if the time between reviews (in a block) is consistently under (say) 7-10 seconds, we trigger a throttle of some sort?

I know some edits really can be reviewed one after another but not all of them and certainly not this consistently.

enter image description here

Improve this question
10
  • 5
    Less than 12 reviews per minute. A very slow reviewer.
    – ypercubeᵀᴹ
    Commented Jul 3, 2013 at 17:00
  • 4
    This has been brought up many dozens of times. Mostly around the time the new review system was first implemented, but still to some degree even sense. The issue has certainly improved since that time, although it is still there. If you have a particular suggestion to make it might be worth posting it as a new question, but if you just want general discussion on the topic, see one of the many existing discussions, with the proposed dup being the most notable.
    – Servy
    Commented Jul 3, 2013 at 17:00
  • 2
    -1. Exposing another user like this is not appropriate IMHO. You could just post the image without the link to his profile
    – user000001
    Commented Jul 3, 2013 at 17:18
  • I don't understand why no one has mentioned audits? Aren't audits working to stop these kind of users from reviewing?
    – Ernest Friedman-Hill
    Commented Jul 3, 2013 at 17:52
  • 7
    @user000001 I take your point but I'm unconvinced... Your review history is public information and linking to the edits would identify the user anyway? If I hadn't linked any edits, I'd have been downvoted for not providing supporting information
    – Basic
    Commented Jul 3, 2013 at 17:57
  • @ypercube I assume you're being flippant? Looking at your recent reviews, you take longer than that (presumably to give the review an appropriate level of scrutiny)?
    – Basic
    Commented Jul 3, 2013 at 17:58
  • 3
    @ErnestFriedman-Hill: "automated tests" in the question probably means the audits.
    – Old Checkmark
    Commented Jul 3, 2013 at 18:33
  • @ErnestFriedman-Hill Audits help, but they by no means remove all bad reviewers, they just reduce the number of them a bit, and in some cases reduce the number of bad reviews they can make by banning them periodically.
    – Servy
    Commented Jul 3, 2013 at 20:38
  • 2
    @user000001 Using Meta to discuss specific users behaviour happens all the time and by mods as well, so it is an accepted practice. Just look at the question referenced above, meta.stackexchange.com/q/149621/213634. In the comments to the question, you can see at least two users directly identified as abusers of the review system. If you feel this method is inappropriate, I suggest you create a discussion question and suggest a better way of discussing specific behaviour on the site.
    – user213634
    Commented Jul 3, 2013 at 20:50
  • The guy you're referring to does show signs of rushing when he reviews, but his reviews look far from random, in-fact a good majority of his reviews are correct
    – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica
    Commented Jul 3, 2013 at 21:06

0

Reset to default

Browse other questions tagged .