Remember Winter Bash? How fun was that?

I propose that we give a virtual broom to everyone who completes 10 reviews in any 24 given hour period. The broom would only last for 24 hours, so to keep it, you would have to do 10 more reviews the next day.

But having a broom would be cool. It would be a nice visual reminder of those folks who dedicate a small amount of time each day to help us sweep the floors.

  • 5
    Disagree - ten reviews is too easy and also there would be a lot more robo-reviewing. (I liked your other review suggestion mainly because there's no way to tell that it's happening unless you look on meta, which robo-reviewers rarely do.) – Doorknob Sep 28 '13 at 18:31
  • 5
    How fun was that? Well....... – Madara's Ghost Sep 28 '13 at 18:36
  • 7
    Don't give them a hat - give them a broom. – animuson Sep 28 '13 at 18:40
  • +1 Must still be friday somewhere :) – Manishearth Sep 28 '13 at 18:40
  • 2
    If they fail an audit give them a dunce cap? – Kevin Sep 28 '13 at 18:43
  • 3
    Ahem. Well, I thought it was a good idea. – user102937 Sep 28 '13 at 18:46
  • 1
    @RobertHarvey So do I! I gave you a +1 :) – WendiKidd Sep 28 '13 at 18:47
  • 4
    +1 on the broom although it would conflict with my gravatar' – PeeHaa Sep 28 '13 at 18:49
  • 3
    @animuson: You mean another broom? ("Reviewers are twice as efficient.") – BoltClock's a Unicorn Sep 28 '13 at 18:50
  • 2
    I love that this started getting upvotes as soon as "hat" was changed to "broom". – WendiKidd Sep 28 '13 at 18:55
  • @BoltClock'saUnicorn: So what's the point of that thing? – user102937 Sep 28 '13 at 19:07
  • 1
    @Robert Harvey: What could possibly be more satisfying than clicking a cookie repeatedly for hours on end and knowing you're making billions of them with every click? – BoltClock's a Unicorn Sep 28 '13 at 19:15
  • @BoltClock'saUnicorn: I've got a new addiction now, damn you. – user102937 Sep 28 '13 at 19:42
  • @RobertHarvey It's so pointless, and yet so fun! – Doorknob Sep 28 '13 at 19:51
  • 3
    The sad part is that I am still clicking. – Travis J Sep 28 '13 at 21:01

I don't want a broom. I don't want a hat. I don't want a mug.

I want to be able to visit the queue, do some work, and not feel like the bellhop in Hilbert's Hotel. My continuing belief is that an algorithm could close -- even delete -- a large fraction of what's in there now, but I can't prove it.

One fallback idea is to forget about history. If something is more than a day old, punt it from the queue. Use the queue to get attention onto the most important area: the front page. Make it a way to gather community attention onto incoming crud.

If you want to have humans slog through 80k of crap, try presenting it to them in batches that they can complete. Make an 'old close queue' that never has more than 1000 things in it because the system only dumps the next 1000 things into it when we finish dealing with the previous 1000 things.

  • 4
    OK, so you don't want a broom, or a hat, or a mug. But WE DO!!! (You should post this as a separate feature request if it hasn't been posted already.) – BoltClock's a Unicorn Sep 28 '13 at 19:06
  • 1
    I think we need a queue for the team so that they can more efficiently reject all the requests for a working close queue. – Rosinante Sep 28 '13 at 19:14
  • 2
    "the bellhop in Hilbert's Hotel": I am SO stealing this. – Jim Lewis Sep 28 '13 at 21:07
  • We are working on a few things that should hopefully make the close queue suck less. Note that this (at the moment, anyway) is only a problem on Stack Overflow. The first thing we're looking at is more intelligent close vote aging. Keep an eye out for a meta post on what we're planning to do hopefully sometime next week. – Adam Lear Sep 28 '13 at 21:10
  • 1
    @AnnaLear Could you give us a hint on what "more intelligent aging" would be? I hope it includes making votes go away in questions that stay under the low view threshold for an extended period. – bfavaretto Sep 28 '13 at 21:29
  • I hope that aging out close votes includes aging out the original close voters. I want to be able to vote to close it again if it somehow becomes prominent. – Rosinante Sep 29 '13 at 0:26
  • 1
    That threshold depends a lot on the site. SO gets (I gather) dozens of reviews and turns over its front page in a day or less. Smaller sites get very few reviews and it's reasonable for them to stick around for a few days. Thresholds need to scale to the site. – Monica Cellio Sep 29 '13 at 2:03
  • 1
    @bfavaretto "More intelligent" as in "not based on an arbitrary number of views". We're ideally hoping to take into account things like "how many 3k+ users looked at the question and did something other than vote to close - edit, answer, upvote, etc.". – Adam Lear Sep 29 '13 at 21:55

We should also award a hat to anyone who reviews any 10 items in a 30-second period. The hat would last for 24 hours as well, or optionally as long as the duration of a review ban. To keep it, you would have to be really desperate for that review badge.

But having a hat would be cool. It would be a nice visual reminder of those folks who dedicate too much time each day and yet only create more work for the legitimate reviewers instead.

  • 4
    Does that hat say "dunce"? – animuson Sep 28 '13 at 18:46
  • 3
    @animuson, nah, it says BAN ALL THE THINGS. – WendiKidd Sep 28 '13 at 18:48
  • At what point will you change your username to BoltClock's a grumpy Unicorn? ;) – Bart Sep 28 '13 at 18:50
  • Hat? Who said hat? I WANT HAT – badp Sep 28 '13 at 18:52
  • @badp You no has mod hat? – WendiKidd Sep 28 '13 at 18:52

Sounds like fun, we should tie a badge to it, if someone can keep the icon for some long consecutive period of time.