9

This question already has an answer here:

Some people simply aren't very good at reviewing. They're actively harming the site by approving bad suggested edits, clicking "Looks OK" on spam, etc. On a site like Stack Overflow, we're not running short on reviewers.

The current review-ban system is only slightly more intelligent than a box of rocks. Your first automated ban is 2 days, then 7 days for your second within a time interval, then 30 days.

Now, what happens if you sit out the 30 day one, then immediately jump back in and review stuff badly again, failing a few audits? The system gives you a 2-day ban. And starts the progression over again.

Moderators can 'override' this... kind of. They can manually ban people from reviewing... for up to 30 days. There are far too many people who are willing to sit out the 30-day ban, then keep reviewing things wrong. The only other alternatives to keep these repeat-offenders out of the queue is to outright suspend them, something I'd really rather not do if they're being responsible with other features.

My request is twofold:

  1. The system shouldn't reset to a 2-day ban on people with vast history. If they've already gone through a 2-7-30 cycle, their next automated ban should be 30 days.
  2. Moderators should be able to review ban people for at least 90 days. At present, a moderator would need to suspend a user completely rather than just giving them a longer break from review when repeated shorter breaks don't correct patterns of problematic review decisions.
|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Undo - Reinstate Monica, Community♦ Mar 21 '16 at 17:50

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    Is this really necessary? If a 30 day review ban isn't enough, why not just suspend the account? – yannis Mar 21 '16 at 17:46
  • 5
    @Yannis Because there are a lot of ways for a user to contribute to a site other than review and being a bad reviewer doesn't necessarily correlate with being a bad asker/answerer? – Air Mar 21 '16 at 17:46
  • 2
    Some people just don't seem to have the "editor gene" or whatever it is that makes for good reviewing of other people's work, despite being able to produce content of some value on their own. Not just online, I see it in my professional life as well. Maybe an unwillingness to criticize, maybe a lack of confidence, a fear of being challenged by other reviewers, who knows. Red pen phobia I definitely ain't got. – Air Mar 21 '16 at 17:48
  • 1
    This is pretty much a dup of this. – Taryn♦ Mar 21 '16 at 17:50
  • But we aren't talking about people who happen to be bad at reviewing @Air. We are talking about people deserving review bans longer than 30 days. That... takes some effort. – yannis Mar 21 '16 at 17:51
  • 2
    @Yannis If a user repeatedly (over, and over, and over) fails audits, I really don't care why. I can't think of a reason the review system should, either. – Air Mar 21 '16 at 17:54