As per Should ♦ mods be spending significant time in ordinary review queues?, the consensus is that mods should definitely go through the First Posts and Late Answers queues if they wish, since they are well-equipped to help those users and handle issues like spam.

Spam and complete non-answers are generally what I use these queues to catch and, at least on Android, it is the vast majority of these posts. We have a good number of reviewers but I am one of the main contributors to keeping these queue counts down.

So, given that this is a core part of moderation — why am I getting locked out? Based on votes, no less. Shouldn't I be able to moderate or at least view the queues even if I have voted a lot?


  • 3
    @gnat That's definitely a nice feature that I use regularly, but I'm not talking about history here. – Matthew Read Feb 27 '16 at 20:12
  • Basically you seem to ask for unlimited up/down votes for moderators. Is this correct? – quid Feb 27 '16 at 21:34
  • 5
    @quid Rather on the contrary, He actually seems to ask for access to the queues even if he can't vote, since he uses the queue for things beyond mere up/downvoting. – Christian Rau Feb 27 '16 at 21:39
  • Exactly, I have no desire to have more up/down votes than a normal user. – Matthew Read Feb 27 '16 at 21:41
  • But how do you intend to use these queues as intended if you do not have votes anymore? If it is just about seeing what passes through them, this is what @gnat is offering a solution for. – quid Feb 27 '16 at 22:00
  • 3
    @quid I'm talking about moderation. I don't vote on spam, I remove it and deal with the user. I don't want to see what happens with other users' reviews in this case. – Matthew Read Feb 27 '16 at 22:13
  • Yes, I understand that, but this is not "[using] these queues as intended." – quid Feb 27 '16 at 22:31
  • 1
    I might care about the original intention (if that's what it is) if we were talking about the queue being abused to get around vote limits or something, but again it is useful for dealing with spam and the like. I see no reason to limit mods in this regard just for the sake of it, or because the votes thing is confounding the issue -- vote limits should be independent of mod visibility into the queues. – Matthew Read Feb 27 '16 at 22:58
  • "I see no reason to limit mods in this regard just for the sake of it[...]" It is the other way around though. You ask for implementing special logic to allow moderators access to a queue in this case, to use it for a way other than the intended one. If there is spam, some user should will falg it, and then you can handle the flag. If there is a non-answer, some user will flag it and then you can handle it. I do not know your site, but from the sites I know I do not see the need for a mod to front-run community moderation via these queues. – quid Feb 27 '16 at 23:11
  • 6
    @quid: The primary purpose of FP and LA is not to pass out up- and down-votes, although that's certainly part of it. See my long writeup on the subject. – Nathan Tuggy Feb 27 '16 at 23:51
  • @NathanTuggy well, as you say it is part of it. Thus if you cannot fulfill that part, you cannot completely do the job their. Yes, it might be possible to only do those reviews were you think you anyway would not vote and skip the rest, but with such things there is always a risk of self-deceit. That being said, would it be different I would not see a big problem either. I just do not think it is a priority and worth the hassle to special case mods. Just look at the screen-shot; the close-queue is the swamped one. Finally all arguments given so far seem to apply to all users not mods only. – quid Feb 28 '16 at 0:22
  • 1
    @quid: Having moderators clear out the close queue on their own seems like a recipe for major site problems of all sorts. That's not sustainable, it's not reliable, it's not scalable, and it steps on the toes of those who are trying to plug away at the queue. (Per the originally linked question, it may well be acceptable to skip through the queue to find the really clear-cut cases, but that's not going to get nearly all of them.) – Nathan Tuggy Feb 28 '16 at 0:25
  • @NathanTuggy Part of your argument seems to apply to FP an LA just as well. And again what part of the arguments is specific to moderators? It seems to me either voting is or crucial to do the reviews in these queues or it is not. Nothing special about being a moderator there. – quid Feb 28 '16 at 0:30
  • 1
    @quid: My point is that the close queue size is a tangent. Moderators are, if anything, less able to reliably reduce the queue size in a good way than other users. – Nathan Tuggy Feb 28 '16 at 0:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .