15

Yesterday, I performed a smashing four reviews on Graphic Design, but I skipped through further nineteen of them (mod-only link). Still, I got the Peacekeeper hat. I reproduced this on English Language & Usage.

This is contrary to the description and obvious intention of the hat.

14

This is fixed now. Thanks for letting us know privately before posting it publicly!

We won't be revoking existing hats, but I urge anybody who got the hat by skipping a lot to do their civic duty so they really deserve the hat :)

  • 6
    And my hopes for a free hat get raised and dashed within the space of 7 seconds... – Snow Dec 13 '18 at 10:44
  • Can we at least get a list of those users that got their hat undeserved so we can publicly shame them, no? – rene Dec 13 '18 at 10:48
  • 2
    @rene: Well, there is no shame to unintentionally get the hat this way. Unless somebody else discovered and exploited this, the only intentional use of the bug was by me on ELU to confirm it. And that was for science; so I am not ashamed of it. – Wrzlprmft Dec 13 '18 at 10:52
  • 5
    To be fair... isn't skipping review you aren't competent enough to act on a part of doing your civic duty too? – SPArchaeologist Dec 13 '18 at 10:55
  • 2
    @SPArchaeologist giving hat for just skipping will cause many to skip on purpose. Not a good thing, IMO. – Shadow The Curly Braced Wizard Dec 13 '18 at 11:08
  • I wondered why I got that hat when I did; I did a bunch for real but I know I skipped a few... – Monica Cellio Dec 13 '18 at 16:11
9

I'd argue that skipping should earn you the hat. If you're skipping, you're not robo-reviewing - it means that you're deciding that you aren't qualified to judge this post. We should be encouraging people to skip more. People too often will review something even if they're not qualified to. Skipping is a fundamental part of review.

This hat already kinda encourages robo-reviewing to get the hat. If skips are included, that does much less harm than have people blindly robo-review actual stuff. And no, audits don't do much good, given that they're only on a few sites. Robo-skipping does much less actual harm than robo-reviewing actual posts.

What seems best to me is including a certain minimum number of actual reviews, and letting skips fill in the rest. So I could make ten reviews, and skip ten items, and get the hat for reviewing responsibly.

Don't encourage people to make reviews on stuff they'd skip for a hat.

  • While I agree that people trying for the hat may complete reviews that they would normally skip, other people will skip just to get the hat, not doing any proper reviewing. It takes no thought to hit skip 15 times, making the hat worthless. – hat Dec 13 '18 at 11:38
  • 2
    @hat - but it doesn't take much effort to robo-review 20 items, either - and that's much more harmful. And that's why I said that needing a number of actual reviews as well could work. – Mithrandir Dec 13 '18 at 11:40
  • It can go wrong both ways I guess; one way makes bad reviews, and the other a worthless hat. At the end of the day you just can't win. – hat Dec 13 '18 at 11:47
  • 2
    @hat would prefer the worthless hat over the bad reviews any day. The hat will go away in less than a month, the reviews stay there forever. – Νеvеrꭑoꭇе Dec 13 '18 at 12:43
  • @Derpy I totally agree...it's a pity that we have these problems, though. – hat Dec 13 '18 at 12:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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