-21

This Badge should be awarded after 10.000 review tasks.

After gained the Steward badge for closing votes, and soon for other review types, I was wondering if we could aim higher. A gold badge, "Master", for reviewing 10.000 would be very desirable.


Still being downvoted. But what the heck. The hump of close votes has only increased by 5.000 since I last wrote. Now 6.7k. Regardless of the effort trying to reduce it. I am convinced that one day stackoverflow introduces a new badge. As I told them to. Just a matter of time.

I guess it will go as the conflict between Darwin and his opponents :

First step:
This is the most extreme idea I have ever heard!!

Second step:
It may be true, but is not interesting and have no scientific value

third step:
I have always said the same, all the time

A badge, for monitoring more than 1000 posts, maybe 4000, is just on the loop.

  • 15
    Please Nooooo - we're being flooded with terrible review tasks as it is, just because of people aiming for that one badge. Imagine what would happen if there'd be an incentive for those uers to go on beyond the required 250 items for that. Related: The robo-approvers are killing my will to review edits and What can we do to stop bad edits getting accepted? – Pekka supports GoFundMonica Feb 1 '14 at 5:00
  • 5
    OK, well, there is 113.4k close votes to be processed ... Still increasing. – anon Feb 1 '14 at 5:04
  • 5
    that... or it's a really bad idea. – Pekka supports GoFundMonica Feb 1 '14 at 13:48
  • I have 229 point to go = you have 114 downvotes left. Go for it! – anon Feb 3 '14 at 22:35
  • 1
    It's too bad you are taking the negative feedback on your suggestion personally. Don't. Some people just think it's an idea that (however well meant) would have some very negative side effects. There's now even a moderator who stepped up to provide an extensive report on robo-reviewers below. Not sure what else we can do – Pekka supports GoFundMonica Feb 3 '14 at 22:37
  • I agree with you, but what are my options? I cannot delete my question, since there is an answer. And the only thing I has done bad was suggest a new feature. Gee! I look at the bright side. This could be downvoted so much that I dont have any reputation left. That could be fun. What else can I do? – anon Feb 3 '14 at 22:52
  • don't worry too much about the reputation. My first post on Meta ever received -9, as I recall. Every upvote on a question will gain you +5 and on answers +10, so any loss will be alleviated over time through other contributions. New feature suggestions are always welcomed, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this one, but it hit a very recent nerve with problems of misuse and unintended consequences of badges. It happens occasionally, don't worry too much. – Pekka supports GoFundMonica Feb 3 '14 at 22:55
  • 2
    Jeff Atwood, the founder of the site, has over 150 downvoted questions and answers, the most downvoted one at -192 :) – Pekka supports GoFundMonica Feb 3 '14 at 22:57
  • Hmmm - okay :-) But I still feel it could be a good idea. Encouraging people to review especially close votes. But you are right, apperently I am wrong. – anon Feb 3 '14 at 23:06
  • it would be a fine idea, if not for the few who don't care for quality at all. :( – Pekka supports GoFundMonica Feb 3 '14 at 23:15
  • Make one for 10000 close votes review instead. These logs need to clear somehow – puretppc Feb 7 '14 at 21:25
  • 1
    @davidkonrad I rolled back your edit. Do not edit a question into a completely new one after it has been answered. – Louis Dec 5 '14 at 11:19
  • @Louis, just fine - thank you. – anon Dec 5 '14 at 11:21
14

I disagree with this. We are already offering three badges for each review task. I don't see any point for offering more badges for the same task. If we offer more badges, surely robo-reviewers will come back and start robo-reviewing again after they have earned Steward badge.

  • It could (perhaps) reduce the hump of more than 100k close votes to questions. – davidkonrad Feb 1 '14 at 5:07
  • 6
    @davidkonrad - I would prefer the queue to increase rather than it is reviewed by robo reviewers. The queues are there to increase the quality of questions, not to decrease the quantity of the queue itself. – hims056 Feb 1 '14 at 5:09
  • 2
    @davidkonrad - Proof? We have a tag for it. You can search by yourself. – hims056 Feb 1 '14 at 5:14
  • 4
    @davidkonrad, hims056 is talking about queue reviewers who don't pay attention to the post being reviewed, and just blindly click a button. Not literal bots. And yes, they're incredibly prevalent. Follow the links. – Michael Petrotta Feb 1 '14 at 5:22
  • 1
    Follow the links, @david, and look for comments from users with a diamond after their name, if you're looking for a more official SE POV. – Michael Petrotta Feb 1 '14 at 5:28
  • 3
  • 1
    The data you asked for has been provided. Now you're being difficult. Good night. – Michael Petrotta Feb 1 '14 at 5:42
  • 3
    @davidkonrad - what type of proof you want here? A comment from SE team like "Yes we accept that the robo-reviewers exist in SO"? When SE team implements features to prevent careless reviewers, do you want further proof? – hims056 Feb 1 '14 at 5:47
  • 1
    @davidkonrad - But before starting a new account take a permission from the SE team. – hims056 Feb 1 '14 at 5:59
  • 1
    oops, seems like a good idea - Thank you very much. – davidkonrad Feb 1 '14 at 6:11
  • 4
    @david maybe there is a misunderstanding here. The term "robo-reviewers" doesn't generally refer to a script when used on Meta; it refers to reviewers who don't care about the quality of their reviews, they just want the badge. I see dozens and dozens of those every day, approving garbage edits and sometimes even spam. I see dozens and dozens of such bad reviews every day; they're immensely frustrating. If you seriously claim that problem doesn't exist, I don't think we can have a serious discussion here – Pekka supports GoFundMonica Feb 1 '14 at 13:50
  • 7
    @davidkonrad - OK, you want an "official" response, I'm a moderator on SO. As of right now, there are 120 people banned from review on the site, almost all for repeatedly failing system-imposed audits. These aren't automated scripts, they are people sitting behind a computer clicking one button over and over to try to get some imaginary badge. When you click one action 100% of the time, with an average review time of 3 seconds, there's no way you are reading anything that appears in front of you. Worse, there are people who have found ways to game audits, and we deal with them personally. – Brad Larson Feb 1 '14 at 17:45
  • 5
    Things were far worse in the brief period between when review badges were introduced and we added the audits. We're still cleaning up all the spam that was approved (and even upvoted) during that period. Hundreds and hundreds of people have attempted to game reviews to get these badges, and it has caused active harm to the site. Ask any SO moderator and they will tell you the same story. Aside from the timing, it's very clear that this was all badge-related when you'd see reviewers game reviews up to the point where they got a gold badge, stop immediately, and then start gaming another queue. – Brad Larson Feb 1 '14 at 17:50
  • 2
    @david I'm not sure how one could have read Brad's comments and reach that conclusion? They are a huge problem. – Pekka supports GoFundMonica Feb 3 '14 at 22:40
  • 2
    @david you seem to be the one who doesn't understand here. As said repeatedly now, those problem users, and those that haven't been banned yet, are what we are referring to as "robo-reviewers" here. They are an ongoing problem, and not all of them are being caught. There is no problem with automated scripts, just with human reviewers trying to game badges. The mechanisms built to catch them are imperfect, as there is no way to check the validity of a "good/bad" vote. We have a similar new epidemic going on right now with mundane tag edits. – Pekka supports GoFundMonica Feb 3 '14 at 22:47

You must log in to answer this question.