I noticed some real egregious reviewing on this question. It was closed as a duplicate of a question that it doesn't come close to duplicating, the OP's problem being that of formatting Excel via C#, nothing to do with understanding floating-point calculations in a computer.

I was thinking that maybe there should be some facility to "flag"/"vote on" the reviewer and the specific review, by clicking on his name on that review and a dialog comes up, and ultimately building a rating for that reviewer based on commmunity input, that only the moderators could see. Eventually, this might give them some data to correlate to bad reviews and they could implement a heuristic to use that. For example, they could use it to influence the audits given a particular reviewer.

I'm sure with my contrarian views, I'd get tagged a lot, but I'm comfortable with the mods (as a group) reviewing the extreme cases and making decisions based on that.

As has been pointed out, it's a dupe of this question, so please go upvote it there. <rant>It's sad that some users feel they need to use the downvote just because something is a dupe, instead of whether or not they disagree with the content, but that's life. I'll make sure my voting is done correctly.</rant>

  • Why not use data already present; namely what other reviewers thought when reviewing the same post? – Martijn Pieters Nov 4 '13 at 17:45
  • Been suggested many times. (Many of which were in this time last year when the review system went through it's big changes.) – Servy Nov 4 '13 at 17:47
  • This is not even a duplicate of that question, read that question it doesn't even bring up this idea. – Lance Roberts Nov 4 '13 at 17:49
  • 3
    @MartijnPieters That's also been suggested quite a lot, although it has major problems. In short, if the majority of reviewers are doing the right thing, there isn't a problem; a few bad apples don't actually result in the wrong action taken. If there are enough bad apples then it's the good reviewers who are punished because they're the ones in the minority. – Servy Nov 4 '13 at 17:49
  • @LanceRoberts The question doesn't, but several of the answers do. – Servy Nov 4 '13 at 17:49
  • @Servy, and many many times answers are turned into feature request questions. This is appropriate behavior for Meta, and doesn't create a duplicate. – Lance Roberts Nov 4 '13 at 17:50
  • @LanceRoberts That was done several times as well, here's the first one I found: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/148865/… – Servy Nov 4 '13 at 17:53
  • @Servy, that is about flagging a review in general, not about flagging a user to create a numerical rating. I looked and couldn't find a dupe, but if you do find the right one, I'll cast my own vote-to-close as dupe. – Lance Roberts Nov 4 '13 at 17:55
  • My question isn't that much about flagging, it just seemed like the mechanism that SO would use to create the rating. I'm thinking of it more like up/dowvoting, but didn't figure they'd want to create the extra interface for that. – Lance Roberts Nov 4 '13 at 17:56
  • Here's another post discussing it: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/196183/… – Servy Nov 4 '13 at 17:57
  • Ok, that's a good one, I'll answer there, then vote to close as a dupe of that. Thanks. – Lance Roberts Nov 4 '13 at 17:59

One problem I can see, is the likelihood that the owners of the closed posts would consistently flag the close voters in retaliation for having their questions closed.

Basically most if not all reviewers would likely end up with a poor rating, unless there was some mechanism that prevented users from engaging in retaliatory flagging.
(As in you can't flag on your own closed post.)

| improve this answer | |

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