7

This question already has an answer here:

Disclaimer: I haven't reviewed in ages. I just see 55k and think, What's the point?

This leads me to wonder if it might not make a psychological difference (and maybe calm the robo-reviewers?) If there was just a simple 'There is something to review' message, and no indication of 'pressure'. (Just imagine if the Google Image Labeller had said "2,352,342 images left to label", would you have played?)

marked as duplicate by animuson Nov 21 '13 at 16:36

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.

  • 1
    Of course theres the reverse, before I started there were things to review, now there are still things to review. I have achieved nothing – Richard Tingle Oct 14 '13 at 13:51
  • I think the problem is not really with the numbers, but with the fact that reviews are boring, give no rep, and on SO newbies feel they are treated unfriendly (right or wrong, that's how they feel), so they usually don't stay long enough to be 3k+ and start reviewing on their own. Also, earning rep on less crowded sites like Drupal Answers is way easier = people starts to review way faster. – Mołot Oct 14 '13 at 13:52
  • 5
    Then again, some of the rewards that have been put onto reviews haven't always been all that successful either @Mołot. Not in terms of participation, but in terms of review quality. – Bart Oct 14 '13 at 13:53
  • @Bart because they always rewarded number of reviews, not quality. Now, I'm not saying I know the ultimate solution. But if anything, rewarding for reviews that ends just the way reviewer voted might help a bit. And this does not touch the aspect of newbs not hitting 3k at all, which my intuition tells me is a worse problem. – Mołot Oct 14 '13 at 13:57
  • 2
  • 1
    @Molot While many people may not hit 3K, there are plenty that already have. According to the rep league page, almost 5000 on SO. If only 10% of them only did 10 reviews today, that would drop the number of reviews in the queue by about 9%. It could be gone in two weeks if people just did it (disclaimer: I don't know how many are added per day, but I assume it would be much less than 5K). I think an incentive could work, provided it was an incentive to reward quality, as you said. Not that I have the slightest idea of how to implement that... – Geobits Oct 14 '13 at 14:15
  • I would go with showing "More than 100 questions". – Shadow The Dragon Wizard Oct 14 '13 at 14:23
  • This is one of many ideas. I think: "lets try it and see if it help. Why not ?" +1 – Sergio Oct 14 '13 at 14:35
  • Pimping one of my tangentally related ideas - showing users the number of reviews they are capable of doing in the title bar (40 is a number people can deal with). Notify users of possible reviews on toolbar – user213963 Oct 14 '13 at 14:59
3

When the low quality review queue had several tens of thousands of items there were lots and lots of people reviewing the content, same same for the first post, and late answer queues. People were not discouraged there when there was a very long backlog of content when the queues were first added.

Clearly it's not knowing the queue size that's the issue here; people simply don't like using the close vote queue as much as the other queues.

  • 1
    I think the "problem" is rather that there are so many more items being sent to the close queue than the other queues. – Simon Forsberg Oct 14 '13 at 15:12
  • 1
    @SimonAndréForsberg Not really, no. It's an issue with the rate at which they are processed, not the rate at which they're going in. Regardless, unless there were a very large number of items put into the queue that shouldn't have been there, that's not something you want to go down. Honestly; reviewing in a queue with a lot of items is nicer on the reviewer; you don't end up in race conditions stepping on the toes of other reviewers as there are enough reviews to give them out to different people. That's not the reason people don't like using that queue. – Servy Oct 14 '13 at 15:16
  • Indeed you are right, at first I was going to ask you about if those stats were public but I just realized that I could actually check the stats myself for the Close queue vs. the Suggested edits – Simon Forsberg Oct 14 '13 at 15:21
  • Maybe the majority of the silent +3Kers don't agree with the 'consensus' close policy :) – Benjol Oct 14 '13 at 16:36
  • @Benjol Lots of people close questions, they just don't use the queue to do it. They close the questions that they come across naturally instead of using the queue to find questions that they should close. So no. – Servy Oct 14 '13 at 16:37
  • No, the reason that we all worked diligently on the other queues is that we made progress. – Rosinante Oct 14 '13 at 22:23
  • @Rosinante I distinctly remember quite a lot of people being disappointed when those queues finally hit empty. It made them much less effective. You couldn't rely on the queue having content for you when you wanted to review; people were stepping on your toes when reviewing, etc. A lot of people stopped bothering to review once the backlog was finished. – Servy Oct 14 '13 at 22:29
  • Since there is now much less work than there are people to do it, that turns out to work just fine. – Rosinante Oct 14 '13 at 22:30
  • @Rosinante Actually it means that the queues aren't serving their purpose. Their purpose is to provide people who want to spend time improving the site with effective targeted tools to help them do just that. When there are people not able to do reviews because there are no items to be reviewed (despite the fact that I can assure you there are plenty of post that can use the attention of quality reviewers on the sites) it's a failure of the queue to effectively utilize resources. – Servy Oct 15 '13 at 15:29
  • @servy I cannot argue with that. – Rosinante Oct 15 '13 at 20:21

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .