Over at Arts & Crafts SE, the “Review Queue” notification light has been mostly false lately, correctly indicating there is a vote to be made only about 10% of the time.

Others at Arts & Crafts members are noticing this also.

This is a duplication of several prior questions, but as none were answered within the past 2 years, I have re-asked in case there have been fixes since then, and hoping you appreciate being notified that the glitch is back.

(Also FYI I am not a Mod nor technically trained, I am just the messenger.)

Prior Questions / Answers:

  • 1
    Someone should tell them that they don't need to put on the red light. Commented Nov 19, 2019 at 18:53
  • 4
    The "Q&A": "How does the review-needed indicator light work exactly?” (dated 10-18-17) is an announcement, complaints rather than answers, go beneath it. Makyen's complaint addresses your concern. Upvoting that 'answer' is one way to bring attention to the issue, indeed there's a discussion that it's tricky to set the threshold properly - what's needed is a smarter algorithm. Even the grey dot lies.
    – Rob
    Commented Nov 19, 2019 at 19:06
  • There could be a few things going on. 1) It is really broken. 2) Items take for ever to get out of the queue, so you will see it again in the next hour, but already handled that item. 3) There are a lot of reviewers so the queue is actually cleared right before you see the red mark.
    – Luuklag
    Commented Nov 20, 2019 at 8:51
  • 2
    I'm tagging this as [status-deferred] instead of [status-planned] because the work in my answer will take many months, but it is in progress! Commented Jan 6, 2020 at 20:35
  • @NickCraver you mean many years, or to be more accurate, infinite amount of years. Commented Jul 23, 2023 at 10:10

1 Answer 1


Short explanation

This is a known issue for some set of users (particularly active users, unfortunately). We're working a major review queue overhaul (Yaakov is heading up this effort).

Longer explanation

Review queues are an exercise in trade-offs. Mainly, with respect to performance and speed vs. accuracy. Each review queue has its own quirks but the formula is all the same. Every 5 minutes we run some queries that take eligible items for the queue and add them, then we also diff what's not eligible (e.g. the score went up, it was already closed, etc.) and remove those. This phase relies on basic logic with a certain set of criteria per queue. It is not user specific. It's only item specific.

The above process maintains our queues and counts may fluctuate over time dynamically as events happen, but they're only global counts. Again, they're not per-user. These counts power the top bar and dots, because we need to access them on every page load for all logged-in users.

Now when you go to an actual review queue, the data is per-user. For example, in the close vote queue if you've already voted to close a question you wouldn't see that question in the queue. This is logic we need to apply when fetching the next item you are eligible to review (that reads backwards: more directly, we're really filter out what you're not eligible to review).

Overall, the accurate version is too expensive to run on every page load for the top bar...so we can't do that.


One of the things we're doing some tech discovery and planning on now (Yaakov's leading this and I'm helping design the backend) is replacing the fundamentals of how review queues work. The "queue" (it's not really a queue) living in SQL and filtered there with atomic concerns (e.g. many people concurrently reviewing an item) being handled by Redis isn't ideal. The criteria for queues and who's eligible for what has gotten complicated over the years and the queries are pretty damn ugly. We need a new approach. Things like an event-based system when possible to enter questions into the queue when they're closed (instead of on a 5 minute job) and similar types of event triggers based on queue types is a lot more scalable, less duplicated/wasted effort, and let's us extend and make better some things.

I can't promise the count situation will get better for your case at this point based on the exclusion of eligibility factors, but the counts will be better for the exhaustion-not-yet-reflected and similar scenarios since they'll just generally be more real-time counts overall.

  • Pity this was cut and shut down in favor of useless AI toys. Commented Jul 23, 2023 at 10:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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