3

This question already has an answer here:

I'm seeing for a long time that the review for Close Votes just raises every hour, is at least 1k per day. This is out of control. I have some old flags that never was reviewed and in this way never will be reviewed.

So, why not raise the maximum number of individual reviews of 40 to 100 for example? I think this is bad for the community stay the way it is.

Someone have some other idea? Already have some ideia to make it better?

marked as duplicate by ben is uǝq backwards, Aaron Bertrand, Danubian Sailor, Richard Tingle, Aziz Shaikh Oct 9 '13 at 14:20

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • Doesn't seem that unreasonable, I think the fear is (a) people burning out (b) a moderate but reasonable limit is a challenge to get to, a large limit is depressing to reach; leading to less reviews over all – Richard Tingle Oct 9 '13 at 11:24
  • 2
    I don't think as a challenge to reach, just do something to lower the opened Closed Votes that end. – Butzke Oct 9 '13 at 11:25
  • 2
    I'm surprised that at current limits (wasn't it 30?) anyone is able to pay attention at the end of it. If you really pay it, at some point it's spent, simple as that, and no matter what you do, reviews will not get better. I see this problem differently: people vote as fast as they can to use up their limit, and don't care to provide constructive comments to newbies. At least not enough. So we have newbies with question bans, as no one told them where they err in any usable (friendly and patient) manner. It stops them from becoming 3k users and working the queue themselves one day. – Mołot Oct 9 '13 at 12:50
  • @Mołot I agree with, we need quality in votes, because that the Close Votes are enabled with 3k reputation, we need to trust in this users. What I'm trying to ask is what its done the do this better? Do nothing isn't a good answer. – Butzke Oct 9 '13 at 13:28
  • @Butzke I believe in primum non nocere - do nothing is way better answer than do something harmful. – Mołot Oct 9 '13 at 13:30
  • @Mołot Yes you right, but the community have conditions and tools to make it right. So, why keep the way it is? You think that the out of control flags is something right in the community? – Butzke Oct 9 '13 at 13:32
  • @Butzke I think that saying "Shotgun kills cancer cells" (happens to be true!) and if someone opposes shooting at patients asking "do you think cancer is good?" is not exactly right :P Of course I think it's bad. I just don't think it's the right solution, even if numbers next to queues will really decrease. – Mołot Oct 9 '13 at 13:35
  • @Mołot Yes, but for now, I only see two exits to decrease the queue, one its raise the number of votes, and the second is decrease the reputation needed to vote. But the second choise I disagree completely. But the first I think that is viable, because members with more than 3k its trusted users. – Butzke Oct 9 '13 at 13:40
  • @Butzke for first dozen or two reviews a day yes it is. Later he is either a badge-hunter, sick at home and bored, nolife with power hunger, simply tired, or "reviewed" too fast to get tired. Neither of above makes a good reviewer. Exceptions are rare and tends to end up with a diamond next to their user-names. Of course you may think I'm wrong, but that's how I see it and I don't think you can convince me otherwise. – Mołot Oct 9 '13 at 13:43
  • 1
    I don't think that allowing individuals to spend 4 hours instead of 2 in the review queue is the best solution - for the same reason we have a reputation cap. We don't want any given person to spend all day doing something. Perhaps a better solution would be to force new questions to go through an approval process before they show up on the site, just like suggested edits; whether they hit that queue will depend on the user's rep and/or number of closed questions. Add a new queue where people can approve 40 (or maybe more?) questions per day, and give rep for hitting that limit. – Aaron Bertrand Oct 9 '13 at 13:43
  • I vaguely recall someone explaining that older questions are trickled into the review queues over time, so perhaps the trickle feed is overwhelming the ability of the reviewers to keep up? I.e. the earliest allowed question date in the queue was being moved further back in time to accommodate more flagged questions. – Duncan Jones Oct 9 '13 at 13:50