Note: This might be a terrible idea.

Sometimes a question gets asked and quickly receives three or more answers. And sometimes at least one of these answers actually answers the question, but none of the answers gets upvoted. Such a question quickly falls of the front-page and lives in the "unanswereds" section, even though it has been answered. Every once in a while, the Community user will bump these questions back to the front page.

I was wondering whether it might be a good idea to have a new review queue: the "Should this answer be upvoted?" review queue. Or perhaps we should call it a "High quality posts queue", with the goal to identify high quality posts [as opposed to the low-quality queue which tries to identify low quality posts].

In such a queue, posts from unanswered questions would appear, and users would decide whether or not they are worth upvoting.

It is a natural question to figure out which posts should appear in such a queue. Perhaps one would begin with questions which 1. have non-negative vote total, 2. are unanswered, 3. have at least 3 non-downvoted answers, and 4. are at least 3 months old.

Or perhaps some other criteria --- this is just a thought. Some experimentation would be necessary.

What are some potential benefits from such a queue? Some good posts which are otherwise unrewarded might get some positive feedback, which seems like a good thing.

But I admit that I have a particular problem that this would help alleviate. On Math.SE, I sometimes browse unanswered questions to find something interesting to think about [especially while waiting for my students to show up to my office hours]. And frequently I'll find something interesting and later answer it. So I treasure a well-maintained unanswered question section.

Unfortunately, in many topics there are thousands of questions in the "unanswered question" sections which actually are answered, often multiple times --- except that none have upvotes. This pollutes the unanswered tab and makes it much harder for me to find interesting actually-unanswered content. So instead I find myself upvoting content instead of answering content [of course, that's fine --- it just happens to not be what I was after].

There are some potential pitfalls to such a proposal as well. In particular, there always seems to be a few "robo-reviewers" who seem to ignore the actual task of the review topic at hand and instead want to "review" as many different posts as possible [perhaps for the associated badges? I don't actually know their intentions]. It also seems possible that there are many topics that any given reviewer wouldn't be knowledgeable or capable enough to typically assign upvotes or downvotes.

Perhaps one way to respond to both of these would be to not allow direct upvotes from the reviewing page, but instead to have a "Mark as high quality" button. Then if X percentage of Y reviewers marked a post as high quality, then the Community user gives it an upvote... or something like that.

  • 1
    Without reading other than the title, I think I can safely say that this queue will never stop being empty, on larger or smaller sites. On large sites because of the sheer number of answers, and on smaller sites because normal review stuff takes hours there. TL;DR; you won't find people willing to review anything there. – M.A.R. Oct 1 '16 at 18:56
  • @Rubisco You say "never stop being empty." Do you mean that it will "never be empty" instead? As an aside, I'm not sure of any connection between having a very large queue and a potential lack of reviewers. So I am not sure if I think your TLDR follows from the previous two sentences of your comment. But it is certainly a possibility – davidlowryduda Oct 1 '16 at 19:03
  • @Rubisco I don't agree with you. I think it could be a better queue than low-quality post or first post. These two queues are there even if new and first posts are always bumped to the top. But older posts that have been neglected by all the users have no chance of being found unless users make some efforts. Why not? – Rathony Oct 1 '16 at 19:03
  • @mixed I meant empty of people, not stuff to review. – M.A.R. Oct 1 '16 at 19:04
  • @Rath So you want all of a site's post to be put under review? Why? Who's willing to awaken a post that has resided on ELU for three years, let alone review it? – M.A.R. Oct 1 '16 at 19:06
  • 1
    @rub I didn't say all of a site's posts should be put under review. They could be arranged in some efficient and effective ways. This question makes sense, at least. What if a user finds a 3-year old answer that deserves 20 upvotes when the other answer is a piece of XXXX that has 15 upvotes? Why not? – Rathony Oct 1 '16 at 19:08
  • @Rath then they should do that by themselves, and review queues are not the way to go. A review queue should be for something that requires immediate attention. First posts because new users need guidance. Very low quality because it's trash that should be taken out. There are no effective ways to arrange a whole site's posts, old and new, so interesting stuff comes up. If you really like finding those low voted diamonds, you have to dig in the sand yourself. There are no easy ways to do it, and a review queue with a bunch of people looking to collect badges is surely not the way. – M.A.R. Oct 1 '16 at 19:11
  • There is enough upvoting. If anything, we need more people to cast down votes. I don't think doing this kind of voting via a queue gives the post an unbiased judgement from a visitor which is kind of mandatory as you want to vote on the content, not because you are in the up-vote queue. – rene Oct 1 '16 at 19:16
  • Generally, voting is something you help moderate the sites with, but it's not like flagging or voting for closure. I can vote however I want. I can upvote this question. I can downvote it. I can even opt not to vote it. You can't say the same for flagging. I can downvote someone's post because I'm a jerk and don't like their face, and this isn't against the rules if it's not serial voting. See? That's why a voting review queue doesn't make much sense. – M.A.R. Oct 1 '16 at 19:19
  • 1
    @rubi Do you really think First and Low Quality queues require immediate attention? No. They have attention because they can be noticed on the top of the page/moderators' tool. What SE is missing is how to get rid of blind upvotes and how to help more helpful answers receive more upvotes than less helpful one. There is no mechanism to do that in an efficient way other than bounty. Well, why not? Will it cause any harm? What if we allow a post to appear in the queue which has just been found vote-worthy (upvote or downvote together) by a high-rep user? Just an idea (alcohol-influenced) – Rathony Oct 1 '16 at 19:20
  • @Rath see my previous comment. I'd really like to let off some steam and rant about how the other queues don't work too. But for something to be implemented, at this scale, with this much dev work, we need a much direr need, much more community support and just really an exceptional case. There are many things that don't hurt but don't get implemented either. If they implemented what the users said every time "just to try it out", SE would've needed much more devs and servers. – M.A.R. Oct 1 '16 at 19:23
  • @Rubisco Well, you are always reasonable. I think I mentioned this before to you, SE's biggest problem is the quality of over-upvoted posts, not first posts or low quality ones. There is no mechanism to control blind upvotes and under-upvoted posts. That's why I suggested a few days ago (in an answer) we should stop granting the upvoting right to 101 rep users to solve the blind upvote problem. As SE is older and mature enough now, I think raising the bar for upvotes should be considered now. Well, I need to go to bed. Nice talking to you. (Even if there is a typo here, not my fault :-) – Rathony Oct 1 '16 at 19:30

It all starts with the question when you upvote a post: because it is useful to you or it shows outstanding effort from its author on a subject you are interested in. A review queue build to upvote posts defeats that purpose. If you didn't come across it because you were looking for it, why does it need a vote from you then? Just to remove it from the unanswered questions list? That seems the world upside down.

It will also give unfair attention to the question and answers since it will be judged by X users which could vote on them, not to speak about the robo-reviewers who will blindly upvote everything which gives the false impression that anything eventually will be rewarded, no matter the quality. If we need anything, we need a review queue to downvote, not to upvote.

| improve this answer | |
  • Robo reviewers will do anything they see fit regardless of whether it's a review queue or just bumped up questions or answers. If we are worried about robo reviewers, we should come up with some ideas that can prevent them from reviewing any post. The OP's suggestion could work if we set the bar at 10K or 15K reputation points, among which we can reasonably believe there are no robo reviewers. Robe reviewers are enjoying their privileges at 2K or 3K level and they just review. I sometimes have no idea what the heck they are doing just reviewing posts without participating in Q&A and comments. – Rathony Oct 2 '16 at 18:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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