33

After handling a couple cases of folks reviewing things incorrectly, and applying a few review bans, I noticed that it'd be nice to know whether someone has a history of reviewing stuff wrong without clicking through to their history.

I propose we implement this in the "Account Info" dropdown:

enter image description here

Or show them with an annotation bubble, although that might be more confusing.

|improve this question
  • 5
    Is that "3 prior review bans" a convenient link to the user history page with the filter set appropriately? Because it should be! – Niall C. Aug 25 '16 at 3:49
  • That'd be how I would expect it to work, definitely – Undo Aug 25 '16 at 3:49
  • 2
    This would be very helpful, because moderators typically weight the duration of manual review bans based on the number of previous bans a user has received. Currently, it's a three-step process to see this information, which slows us down significantly. Also, by having this be hidden in a difficult location to get to, it allows truly abusive reviewers to go unnoticed for a long while. If we could see that someone had been banned from review 30 times right on their profile, we'd be alerted to this faster. – Brad Larson Aug 25 '16 at 14:47
12

This has been implemented as of the latest build. If a user is not serving a review ban it will show the total number of times they have been banned from review.

The information has been added to both the Account Info dropdown and the Mod Dashboard for the user. The number of times banned is a link that will take you to the history.

|improve this answer
  • 1
    Any chance we could get this info for self only for users? I'd kinda wanna keep tabs on how often & long I've been banned. – Magisch Sep 14 '16 at 11:45
  • 2
    Honestly... I think this would be counter-productive, @Magisch. There's a vast difference between someone who regularly goes through the "cycle" of review-bans (2-7-30) and someone who occasionally gets fatigued and sits out for two days. Showing this would rub everyone's faces in their own worst moments, and likely do nothing for the folks who spend half their time on the site banned from review. The next step here is probably just extra-long bans for the latter; as a mod tool, this helps us better understand the scope of the problem there. – Shog9♦ Sep 14 '16 at 18:45
  • @Shog9 I'd like some more audit stats and accuracy stats on my reviews. I on occasion review quite a lot (over 4k reviews so far in my year here) and I'd like to have some metrics to see what factors I can still work on to improve my accuracy and usefulness. Currently, as I do not have 10k (and I'm not getting there either anytime soon, having just lost 4k rep from the docs recalc) so I can't review a whole lot of the things I ended up reviewing that got deleted. – Magisch Sep 14 '16 at 18:46
  • Accuracy would be much more useful than audits, I think. Imagine if you could do a dozen close reviews, and come back the next day to see how many of them had actually been closed. Or a dozen triage or helper queue reviews, and see the eventual fate of the questions involved. An engaged reviewer could actually judge the worth of their time based on the long-term effect it has on the site, instead of a stupid number. – Shog9♦ Sep 14 '16 at 18:50
  • @Shog9 I was going for the low hanging fruit on that, but yes, Accuracy stats while harder to implement would be very nice. You know of my disdain for audits in the current system, but I've gotten semi-good at spotting those, so there's probably a statistical bias in my audit rates compared to the accuracy rates, so accuracy would indeed be better (and allow me to despair at what gets through SE's more) – Magisch Sep 14 '16 at 18:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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