14

I am interested to track the progress in "my neck of woods", that is to roughly estimate how many posts in the queue match the filter I selected (FWIW, my current filter is "primarily opinion-based" and according to Shog, recently queue had 6,345 posts that match it).

enter image description here

Taking into account that I may use filter settings for various close reasons and tags, what could be difficulties to show / refresh this kind of stats? Could there be performance or UX or other problems?


Note similar idea was mentioned in an answer in How to make close-review queue less thankless

It might be helpful if you could see how many questions there are in the queue that fit your filtering options.

That way a reviewer might focus on a seldom used tag with a chance of completely emptying the queue for that tag.

Another answer pointing to this is in Fuzzy the number of questions in the close review queue...

Counter proposal: why not show how many questions are awaiting review in my part of the site...

So if I've filtered the queue to and the number of close votes isn't 92.5k...

My question differs from above in that I am specifically interested to learn about what could prevent this from getting done.

  • for the record, a pragmatically limited variation for "filter related stats" is provided in the answer in Easy close review queue filtering interface -- "Keeping those counts up-to-date is expensive, so we'd probably have to limit them to the broadest possible filters..." – gnat Dec 4 '13 at 7:07
  • 1
    If we can't have this for implementation reasons, maybe we can at least get some totals per tag? – oberlies Mar 6 '14 at 14:03
4

Given the huge number of possible filters, I imagine it would be next to impossible to cache the total number (unlike the total number for each queue). The SO team tends to not like un-cached queries running on popular pages as it can drag down performance (especially if we are able to convince them to award hats for participating in the CV queue).

  • amount of filters seems to be under 5K currently, does this qualify as huge? Also, what about calculation? I mean, this info can be shown only to one who is currently reviewing (as at the screen shot), that makes it in the order of few hundreds doesn't it – gnat Dec 2 '13 at 19:35
  • 2
    This is the answer. Keeping cached values in memory and keeping them up to date isn't easy - and keep in mind that the counts would be different for every active reviewer! We actually had something less complicated in the old review system, and performance was still not good. Not saying it couldn't happen for a small set of filters, but someone would have to get clever for this to work for arbitrary filters. – Shog9 Dec 2 '13 at 21:07
  • @Shog9 thanks for explaining! What about rate-limiting? Say, as a reviewer, I'd be happy to see progress update once a day (preferably, once in an hour). I also don't have much interest to see info for short living filters, like those I setup only to quickly check if it's comfortable to work with – gnat Dec 2 '13 at 21:10
  • Yeah - so when I wrote "clever" I actually meant "willing to be wrong a good portion of the time", @gnat. Yes, it's possible. Whether it'd a good idea or worth the endless stream of questions regarding a number that's never accurate is another question. – Shog9 Dec 2 '13 at 21:12
  • @Shog9 understood, thanks! – gnat Dec 2 '13 at 21:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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