11

The "top reviewers today" list at https://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/stats seems unnecessary. It's essentially a bunch of 20's with a couple of moderators at the top.

Does this list serve some other purpose?

Generally, top lists are used to motivate people through healthy competition. Since the majority of users here are capped at 20, this doesn't really accomplish that goal. Also since the number of people who end up with 20 (and fairly early on in a day) is so much greater than the number of people that can be displayed on this list, it's essentially just a random list of users.

I'm not sure it should be there, it seems extraneous.

Improve this question
4
  • 11
    That is just because Stack Overflow is special. Most sites are not so busy.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Nov 20, 2013 at 19:38
  • 1
    Perhaps the cap should be raised on SO since so many people seem to hit it.
    – Travis J
    Commented Nov 20, 2013 at 20:11
  • 1
    @TravisJ Maybe, although the suggested edit queue currently seems to be being managed just fine. The close vote queue on the other hand...
    – Jason C
    Commented Nov 20, 2013 at 21:00
  • @JasonC - You are entirely correct. I am so used to reading close vote queue issues that I guess I missed the suggested-edit queue context here. The comment was mostly made in jest :)
    – Travis J
    Commented Nov 20, 2013 at 21:03

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

That's surely true on Stack Overflow, but you have to consider smaller sites too, where there's definitely less traffic and less review tasks performed.

Here's a couple of examples:

https://italian.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/stats

https://codereview.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/stats

With this in mind, it could probably make sense to raise the cap on sites with an extremely high amount of traffic such as Stack Overflow.

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    I don't know if it makes sense to raise the cap, since the suggested edit queue doesn't have a growth issue (not like the close vote queue). Thanks for the examples, I failed to consider lower traffic sites. The moral is that the consequence of using the same system on every site is that every once in a while, a feature isn't quite useful for one of the sites -- but it doesn't take away the overall value of the feature.
    – Jason C
    Commented Nov 20, 2013 at 21:21
  • Many users reaching their review limit isn't in itself a bad thing. The main (only?) reason we should consider raising the cap is if the queue starts building.
    – Bernhard Barker
    Commented Nov 20, 2013 at 22:37
3

The purpose is just recognition of the work folks are putting in. The page also provides some small amount of oversight, but that's really better served by the History tab - the stats page is mostly just a way to see who is contributing to the betterment of the site, and to give those folks a bit of extra visibility to their peers. Reviewing can feel thankless and isolated at times; it's nice to be noticed.

As Gabriele notes, this is potentially a lot more useful on smaller sites, where it's not quite so common to hit the limit for a given queue. That's why starting today, we've established a consistent order based on the time of the last review done by each reviewer - this gives the list a chance to cycle through the day as new people start reviewing.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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