0

Purpose of this feature request is to help SO CV reviewers understand how filter works. For why this is considered important, refer 1, 2, 3.

Suggest that reviewers having default settings would be shown during the day items picked as if they have selected particular close reason. First day these could be unclear, next too broad, next day opinion-based and so on, round by round.

This way is expected to teach reviewer how things would work if they use filter.

Reviewers already aware of how filter works but still willing to damage their productivity use unfiltered queue could achieve this by selecting all close reasons in filtering dialog:

http://i.stack.imgur.com/lN6Yl.png

Alternatively, additional UI can be introduced to opt out of the roll, as explained eg in this answer.

I can think of several ways how the roll could go. Simplest one that comes to mind is to set it globally for everyone, Monday is the day for duplicates, Tuesday is the day for things unclear... Filters can also be "load balanced" between groups of reviewers, like todayFilter=filters[(todayDate+(userId%NumFilters)-startDate)%numFilters], or even rolled individually for user: todayFilter=filters[myNumOfDaysWithCVReview%numFilters]

|improve this question
  • 2
    [to save commenters time] - Oh but... doing so would force reviewers to particular close reason, that's bad. - Yup that's bad... the only thing worse is forcing them to review unsorted pile of stuff; this eventually killed old review system and I bet 97.4+K items that this is killing current system, too – gnat Nov 29 '13 at 11:43
  • 2
    This seems like confusing user interface behaviour. If I like having a selection I may be irritated that when I appear to select that (by not filtering) I get rolling days. Why not have a tick box for "rolling days [insert better name]" and if you want have that ticked by default – Richard Tingle Nov 29 '13 at 12:19
  • @RichardTingle this is targeted on users who are not aware of filtering at all. As pointed in the question, those who know about it, can get "shuffle" by selecting all close reasons (you got a point here by the way but I really prefer to compromise UI for this group in favor of getting the message about filtering across wider audience) – gnat Nov 29 '13 at 12:22
  • The one thing I would add is that everyone on rolling getting the same type on the same day could be dangerous eg; recommending a tool is safe unless you ask on Wednesday etc – Richard Tingle Nov 29 '13 at 21:36
  • @RichardTingle yeah I gave this a lot of thought too, but still can't make my mind on that... anyway, I specifically listed possible roll options addressing this, just in case. 'Filters can also be "load balanced" between groups of reviewers, like todayFilter=filters[(todayDate+(userId%NumFilters)-startDate)%numFilters], or even rolled individually for user...' – gnat Nov 29 '13 at 21:39
  • Is filtering on close reason really useful? Wouldn't auto-filtering on tags be a lot better? – oberlies Mar 6 '14 at 13:13
  • @oberlies filtering by reasons could suffice to give users basic idea that there are filters and how these work, so that they could proceed with further tuning themselves. As for auto-filter for tags, system would have to guess appropriate tags for each user (wanna try mumps or java-me?) and wrong guesses could actually repel reviewers from queue, that's too risky – gnat Mar 6 '14 at 13:29
5

I would be somewhat concerned that this would be an additional hidden behaviour, which is rarely good for a user interface. If I like having a selection I may be irritated that when I appear to select that (by not filtering) I get rolling days instead but selecting all the reasons gives different behaviour.

If this were to be implemented (something I'm still on the fence with) then why not have a tick box for this rolling closure behaviour and if you want have that ticked by default (so people who know nothing about filtering still get it. Something like this:

enter image description here

|improve this answer
  • 4
    And of course [java] should be filtered in by default because java is awesome and I definitely didn't leave that in by accident – Richard Tingle Nov 29 '13 at 13:59
  • upon pondering on this (expanded and better explained version of your comment, right?) if feels quite good. I wouldn't mind if it was implemented this way. The only caveat - I would strongly insist on replacing java in filters by java-me, which is even more awesome :) – gnat Nov 29 '13 at 14:04
  • I plan to expand request with reference to your idea, but can't figure what if user has filter checked at some close reason(s). That additional cycle-through checkbox, maybe it would get grayed or hidden then? Because it feels like having both main filter and roll active simultaneously would drive user nuts – gnat Nov 29 '13 at 21:07
  • @gnat would it? If I had too broad and primarily opinion based it wouldn't seem to angering to cycle between those 2, and I can always untick – Richard Tingle Nov 29 '13 at 21:12
  • well, maybe. I think that makes sense - thanks! What about case when one has single reason selected? – gnat Nov 29 '13 at 21:18
  • @gnat admittedly that would be a wierd combination, I guess cycling between just one thing is just one thing, but it graying out in that case would make sense – Richard Tingle Nov 29 '13 at 21:22
  • all right, this seem to cover it. Thanks for explaining, I edited request to refer your option – gnat Nov 29 '13 at 21:28

You must log in to answer this question.

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