42

For context on how this process came to be, please see our initial commitment to responding to Meta and Mods, our guidelines for the testing period, and the results of the initial test and next steps.

This post contains guidance to ensure moderators understand when to escalate issues that they feel need to be addressed by staff, and when not to. It also has some guidance for the overall community of what posts should be brought to the moderators’ attention as candidates for escalation.

The question contains guidance that is applicable for as long as this process is in effect. Answers containing the response targets and guidance specific to a given period will be posted every 2 months. The answer that relates to the period currently in effect will be accepted so it's pinned to the top. Once that period has elapsed, that answer will be updated to include stats for how we did with regards to our response targets as well as some noteworthy posts.


What makes a good candidate for escalation?

New questions:

For any new question, consider the following questions:

  • Is the question a feature request that looks like it has community support?
  • Is it a bug report that others have been able to reproduce?
  • Is the question only fully answerable by an employee?

If you replied “yes” to at least one of the above, then that question is a good candidate for escalation.

Older questions:

We realize that there are a lot of outstanding posts all over the various Meta sites on the network that have not been addressed by staff — some of them posted a long time ago too. To ensure that the most relevant of those get surfaced and responded to, we ask that you focus mostly on resurfacing old questions that relate to either something only a Community Manager would be able to respond to, or to things currently being worked on by the various product teams (which allows us to easily find these older discussions so that we can use them as part of our research).

So, if a post meets the guidance for new questions above, but it is not new it is more likely to be responded to if it also follows the guidance in the accepted answer, which should be the one relevant to the current time period.

Some of these are going to be SO-specific, but most will eventually apply to all of the network sites, even if with some simplifications. In addition to those larger buckets, for each non-SO (or MSE) site in the network, the CM Team also wants to see that special feature your community has been asking to be enabled for a while now (Mathjax, syntax highlighting, etc.), or that particular warning that would help your new askers — so give us a top 5 of outstanding site-specific customizations from your site, and just make sure their score is positive. Note that features that need dev time and that are only applicable to your site are unlikely to be given a high priority.

And other old posts that fall outside of the scope of projects being worked on?

Community-specific concerns are evergreen good candidates for escalation: anything, from policies to community guidance, that only a Community Manager could reasonably respond to. This includes tweaks to help center pages, and other minor changes to site settings such as blacklisting tags, adjusting the question asking form, and updating site specific close reasons to fit the new format.

Old requests that have previously been declined can be reposted as new requests if you have something you can point to as a switch in the platform or culture that would render the previous reasons for declining obsolete. If you do repost one of these — no matter how old, as long as the issue is still current — be sure to link to the old declined post for historical reference, as well as to any following posts that make discussing the issue again relevant. Staff will be able to either further expand on the previous stance and reiterate why it's still relevant and valid, or make sure the request is put in front of the right team given the new circumstances.

Oh, and hopefully it is redundant to say this, but just for the sake of clarity: don’t repost old posts that fall outside of the above guidance just so they can get attention as a way to game this system, please. It'll just create more work and frustration for you, the mods, and us ^_^

How do regular users nominate a post for staff attention?

If the question meets the criteria above (and in the answer relevant to the current time period), flag the post for moderator attention using the “in need of moderator intervention” option, making sure to provide a link to this post for context. Be as clear as you can about why you think the post is a good candidate.

To prevent overloading moderators with flags, please avoid going on flagging sprees. We want to remind you that your moderators will be the first line of people dealing with these. The CMs will work with the mods to make sure this doesn’t generate a huge increase in their workload, and try to alleviate it as much as possible — but we are also relying on you not bombarding them with tagging requests.

How do moderators escalate a post for staff attention?

How do moderators handle flags nominating a post for escalation?

Refer to the guidance above (and in the answer relevant to the current time period) on how to tell if a post is a good candidate for escalation. Other than that, just use your judgement as you would for handling any other flag. There may be cases where you want to mark the flag as helpful but don’t feel like adding the tag is necessary - that’s fine: again, use your best judgement. If you’re not adding the tag, try to use the flag response field to explain why, so the flagger also gets some information about the decision.

If you’re unsure, talk to your fellow mods about what they think, or feel free to ping a CM in The Teachers’ Lounge for guidance. It’s OK if moderators err on the side of over-escalating issues, rather than under-escalating them: if the CM Team determines something could have been answered without having to elevate to staff, it presents a good opportunity to point moderators to where that information could have been found, as well as to tweak this guidance.

If you escalated an issue by adding the tag, but something caused it to be “solved” — maybe someone from the community could actually answer it and did so; maybe a bug was really an issue on the user’s side; etc. — please ping a CM in The Teachers’ Lounge explaining the situation. We will then figure out with you what to do about that particular issue (which will likely mean removing the tag, at least).

Ok, how do moderators actually escalate a post, then?

Escalating a post is as easy as adding the tag. Doing so ensures that post is picked up by a feed that puts the question on our internal tracking system.

If you are a moderator, refer to the section above (and to the answer relevant to the current time period) describing what makes for good candidates for escalation — if a post fits, add the tag (there’s no need to go through the flagging process for regular users).

If the post already has the tag, ping a CM in The Teachers’ Lounge, and we’ll add it to our system manually.

What happens once a post is escalated?

The CM Team will categorize and prioritize the post, and will then pass it along to the relevant team, which can be the CMs or any relevant product team. It will then be worked into that team’s existing weekly workflow, with the intent of being replied to as soon as the team can manage to.

Note that the commitment being made is to respond to as many posts as possible — that could mean answering or leaving a comment, or adding a different status tag. This doesn’t necessarily mean implementing feature requests or fixing bugs — hopefully that will sometimes happen, though.

Is there a list of the posts getting escalated using this process?

To keep track of what kind of questions are being marked for review, and what happens to them, Glorfindel has built a SEDE query listing all questions across the network which have been marked during a certain period (pre-filled dates are for this process's testing period).

The fifth column is the current status of the question; you see that some of them are already resolved. If you want another time period, just enter other dates in the parameters section (YYYY-MM-DD) and hit the 'Run Query' button — note that fromDate is inclusive, and tillDate is exclusive.

Note that SEDE is updated once a week, on Sunday morning, so the results of this query are less accurate as the week progresses.

  • 1
    Something for the FAQ: what about posts which were escalated yet overlooked during the last phase of the experiment? – Makoto May 29 at 17:32
  • 1
    I'll update that next month, @Makoto: see the answer for June 2020, where I mention one of the targets is setting targets for "leftovers" from previous periods :) – JNat May 29 at 17:39
  • 4
    Remember to include the list of "things currently being worked on by the various product teams", or at least point where to find said list ;) – Braiam May 29 at 19:10
  • If a past request meets the guidelines for escalation in the current month, but has already been tagged status-review in the past, how can that be escalated? Are those escalated automatically? – Sonic the K-Day Hedgehog May 29 at 19:39
  • 1
    Also, I've had a few past flags for escalation declined without an explanation. Is there any way for a user to contest the denial of adding the tag, if they still feel it meets the criteria? – Sonic the K-Day Hedgehog May 29 at 19:43
  • 1
    @SonictheStay-HomeHedgehog: If that sort of thing happens, I'd imagine you could make a meta post about it (at least for unexplained flag denials on specific site metas), as you could for any unexplained flag denial or similar issue. I'm unsure how well that'd be received on MSE, though... – V2Blast May 30 at 9:17
  • 1
    I noticed that Glorfindel's SEDE query shows the highest rated community site meta post in status-review is the request I added on Christianity.SE for Bible Markdown enhancements. Does the switch to commonmark hurt or help this request? And, based on your first comment, is the community score helping the prioritization at all? I think most of us would really, really like this. Mods on some of the the other religious sites said they'd like it too. – Peter Turner Jun 2 at 13:54
  • 1
    Stuff that was tagged status-review before we started testing this process will not get automatically escalated, @SonictheStay-HomeHedgehog, no — the upcoming guidance for older posts should clarify what to do for those. If you mean stuff that was escalated in previous periods and didn't get a response, though, then those are on our radar already and don't need to be re-escalated. – JNat Jun 2 at 14:25
  • The query covers nine sites across the entire network. That doesn't begin to even cover "all questions" marked as status-review. I mean, if you're going to adopt it as something canonical to place in the question, then at least do us the honor of either justifying/owning why the sample size is so narrow, or expanding it to cover everything. – Makoto Jun 2 at 17:52
  • 1
    The query covers more than 9 sites in the network, @Makoto — in fact, the results appear to be mostly accurate, from my end... Could it be that the pre-filled dates are causing confusion here? I know I hadn't noticed them to begin with, and was looking for an older post (on Anime) from the testing period and not finding it. – JNat Jun 2 at 18:03
  • Is a regression bug I filed 3 months ago with 11 votes and no response a good candidate for flagging for escalation by a regular user such as myself? There's also a probable duplicate on Meta Stack Overflow with 10 votes. The fact that the regression arose 3 months ago suggests the area is "being worked on". – dbc Jun 4 at 1:53
  • 1
    As per the guidance we've already established, @dbc, it wouldn't be a good candidate, no. But that's the sort of issue we're hoping to address in the upcoming guidance to be published by the end of the month. – JNat Jun 4 at 11:14
7

September and October 2020

Targets:

  • Respond to 50% of Meta posts from across the network, within 2 weeks of getting added to it.

  • Respond to 75% of Meta posts from across the network, where was added to it in a previous period.

Guidance:

New these two months:

  • Editor: we’re working on an upgrade to the editor. Posts surrounding usability issues with the editor, markdown, or any feature related to post creation — we’d like to hear about it.
  • Winter Bash is also being worked on.
  • Jobs-related posts on the network: Posts relating to Company Pages and Company ads are good candidates, especially given our recent Company Page updates.

And carried over from last two months:

  • Moderator elections: over the next few months, we'll be looking at automating some steps of our election system, as well as some other overdue tweaks to the its backend. Posts surrounding common bugs or pain points in the election system are something we wanna be looking at now, and thus good candidates for escalation.
  • Review Queues: any posts having to do with the general experience and mechanics of review queues; the problems users face as reviewer or moderator when it comes to the current system; any feature requests or suggestions, etc. (see this post and the others linked therein for details on our ongoing work on this).
  • Voting: any posts relating to general issues surrounding voting, peculiar edge-cases, or voting fraud and abuse. We're researching intentions behind voting and its impact on participation and artifact quality.
| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    (I'm just posting so it gets stuck to the top, JNat gets the actual credit. :D) – Catija Oct 9 at 15:23
17

May and June 2020

Targets:

  • Respond to 50% of Meta posts from across the network, within 2 weeks of getting added to it. [not met, only got to ~32%; see below for details]
  • Set targets for responding to "leftovers" from previous periods. [target: respond to 75% of Meta posts from across the network, where was added to it in a previous period]
  • Set targets and guidance for older posts (particularly posts not relating to current projects). [target should be encompassed by the above bullet point; guidance was edited in to the question]

Guidance:

  • Review Queues: any posts having to do with the general experience and mechanics of review queues; the problems users face as reviewer or moderator when it comes to the current system; any feature requests or suggestions, etc. (see this post and the others linked therein for details on our ongoing work on this).
  • Barriers to collaboration or participation: any posts related to product limitations that may hinder users from deeper collaboration within the community or participating on-site. Previous suggestions on ways to address these things such as educating users, best practices, ways to show appreciation, etc. are welcome.
  • Voting: any posts relating to general issues surrounding voting, peculiar edge-cases, or voting fraud and abuse. We're researching intentions behind voting and its impact on participation and artifact quality.
  • Jobs-related posts on the network: Jobs ads are shown on sites other than SO — particularly on the international SOs, and some technical sites — and these can sometimes have specific concerns/issues. Posts relating to Jobs in general on these sites are also good candidates.



Stats for the period:

Overall numbers:

A total of 190 questions had on them at some point during this period, and made their way into the process:

  • 121 (~64%) got the tag added during this period; of these 47 (~39%) got a staff response (39 [~32%] within 2 weeks of the tag getting added), and 38 (~31%) got removed.
  • 69 (~36%) already had the tag on them; of these 21 (~30%) got a staff response, and 24 (~35%) got removed. For a bit of nuance:
    • 62 (~33% of total; ~90% of above) had their tag added to them in the previous period ("leftovers" from the testing period).
    • 7 (~4% of total; ~10% of above) made their way through the process in some other ways (likely because they already had added to them at some point in the past, and an edit made it get into the workflow).

New this period:

A total of 121 questions across all Meta sites got added to them. The tag was added by a staff member on 53 (~44%) of these, and the other 68 (~56%) had the tag added by a moderator.

This means there was a slightly smaller amount of posts escalated when compared to the previous period (-6 posts; ~-5%).

The majority of questions came from MSE, followed by MSO, and the rest Metas from all over the network:

  • 58 (~48%) from MSE.
  • 34 (~28%) from MSO.
  • 29 (~24%) from other child Metas.

Most of the questions escalated were bug reports or feature requests, but there were posts of all types escalated to staff (note that tags are not mutually exclusive):

A total of 47 questions (~39%) got some sort of response from staff after the tag was added, and 39 (~32%) got a response within 2 weeks of getting added. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and any sort of response was ~6d 23h (min. of ~0.1h; max. of ~57d 9h; median of ~14h). Of these (sets below aren’t mutually exclusive):

  • 22 questions (~47% of above; ~18% of total) got commented on by staff. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and the comment getting posted was ~2d 14.5h (min. of ~1min; max. of ~22d 14h; median of ~2h). 20 (43% of above; 16% of total) of these questions got a comment within 2 weeks of the tag getting added to them.
  • 39 questions (~83% of above; ~32% of total) got answered by staff. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and the answer getting posted was ~8d 18h (min. of ~0.1h; max. of ~57d 9h; median of ~1d 7.5h). 31 (66% of above; 26% of total) of these questions got an answer within 2 weeks of the tag getting added to them.
  • 34 questions (~72% of above; ~28% of total) got edited by staff. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and the edit getting submitted was ~7d 19h (min. of ~0.1h; max. of ~57d 9h; median of ~21h). 26 (55% of above; 21% of total) of these questions got an edit within 2 weeks of the tag getting added to them.

Most responses ended up resulting in a corresponding tag edit, and 38 (~31%) questions got removed. 35 of these got removed by staff, the other 3 by a moderator. Of these:

  • 29 questions (~76% of above; ~24% of total) got added to them.
  • 1 question (~3% of above; ~1% of total) got added to them.
  • 1 question (~3% of above; ~1% of total) got added to them.
  • 2 questions (~5% of above; ~2% of total) got added to them.
  • 1 question (~3% of above; ~1% of total) got added to them.
  • 4 questions (~11% of above; ~3% of total) didn’t get a new status tag added.

It’s also worth noting that of the 47 posts that got a response from staff, 30 had status-review added by staff, and the other 17 by mods:

  • 53 tagged by staff, 30 responded, 23 unresponded
  • 68 tagged by mods, 17 responded, 51 unresponded

From previous periods:

A total of 69 questions across all Meta sites still had on them at some point during this period. The tag had been added by a staff member on 33 (~48%) of these, and the other 36 (~52%) had the tag previously added by a moderator.

The majority of questions came from MSE, followed by network Metas, and MSO:

  • 32 (~46%) from MSE.
  • 11 (~16%) from MSO.
  • 26 (~38%) from other child Metas.

Most of the questions escalated were bug reports or feature requests, but there were posts of all types escalated to staff (note that tags are not mutually exclusive):

A total of 21 of these questions (~30%) got some sort of response from staff after the tag was added. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and any sort of response was ~38d 12h (min. of ~1d 9h; max. of ~88d 3h; median of ~34d 3.5h). Of these (sets below aren’t mutually exclusive):

  • 5 questions (~23% of above; ~7% of total) got commented on by staff. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and the comment getting posted was ~58d 14h (min. of ~48d 5h; max. of ~72d 21h; median of ~53d).
  • 15 questions (~71% of above; ~22% of total) got answered by staff. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and the answer getting posted was ~30d 20h (min. of ~1d 9h; max. of ~64d 9h; median of ~34d 3h).
  • 20 questions (~95% of above; ~29% of total) got edited by staff. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and the edit getting submitted was ~39d 7h (min. of ~1d 9h; max. of ~88d 3h; median of ~26d 23h).

Most responses ended up resulting in a corresponding tag edit, and 24 (~35%) questions got removed. 23 of these got removed by staff, the other 1 by a moderator. Of these:

  • 19 questions (~79% of above; ~28% of total) got added to them.
  • 2 questions (~8% of above; ~3% of total) got added to them.
  • 1 question (~4% of above; ~1% of total) got added to them.
  • 2 questions (~8% of above; ~3% of total) didn’t get a new status tag added.

It’s also worth noting that of the 21 posts that got a response from staff, 14 had status-review added by staff, and the other 7 by mods:

  • 33 tagged by staff, 14 responded, 19 unresponded
  • 36 tagged by mods, 7 responded, 29 unresponded
| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    Will this answer include a list of all status-review posts from around the network during this period? :-) That would be a nice thing to edit in, since the numbers seem manageable enough to fit in one post, and the data is public just not easy to gather (except for you with your ticket system). – Rand al'Thor May 29 at 18:08
  • 1
    In the long run, it may be a bit too much to include a full list, @Randal'Thor, but I do understand why it'd be beneficial — I've added Glorfindel's query to the question body so it's featured more prominently, and I believe that should address the use case you had in mind for having a list on each answer. – JNat Jun 2 at 14:18
  • RE: "Respond to 50% of posts across the network" - that's a laudable goal! But is every post on an even footing for whether it gets reviewed? Or is there any weighting being applied here? If you're sorting posts by votes, for example, you might be getting the "most important" posts, but you might also be inadvertently filtering by community/site size. Or you might miss the existential community-dividing posts that have 100-odd up/down votes but a total score of '-1'. So is the post selection criteria random? Or is there a weight given to which posts to review first? – Robotnik Jun 10 at 2:24
  • Currently, @Robotnik, they all get eyes regardless of score, or any other weighting — all posts get the same level of attention when being reviewed to be prioritized and added to the backlog. Dunno how we're gonna do it long run, but that's how it's been happening for now. – JNat Jun 10 at 9:13
  • 1
    Some holidays and vacations ended up delaying this one, but I'm aiming to post some stuff before the end of this week. Apologies for the delay! – JNat Jul 7 at 8:59
  • 1
    I posted the guidance for July and August here, but I ran into some issues with the query to get the stats so will take a bit longer to post those (hopefully before the end of the week). – JNat Jul 14 at 9:49
6

July and August 2020

Targets:

  • Respond to 50% of Meta posts from across the network, within 2 weeks of getting added to it. [not met, only got to ~21%; see below for details]
  • Respond to 75% of Meta posts from across the network, where was added to it in a previous period. [not met, only got to ~44%; see below for details]

Guidance:

New these two months:

  • Moderator elections: over the next few months, we'll be looking at automating some steps of our election system, as well as some other overdue tweaks to the its backend. Posts surrounding common bugs or pain points in the election system are something we wanna be looking at now, and thus good candidates for escalation.

And carried over from last two months:

  • Review Queues: any posts having to do with the general experience and mechanics of review queues; the problems users face as reviewer or moderator when it comes to the current system; any feature requests or suggestions, etc. (see this post and the others linked therein for details on our ongoing work on this).
  • Barriers to collaboration or participation: any posts related to product limitations that may hinder users from deeper collaboration within the community or participating on-site. Previous suggestions on ways to address these things such as educating users, best practices, ways to show appreciation, etc. are welcome.
  • Voting: any posts relating to general issues surrounding voting, peculiar edge-cases, or voting fraud and abuse. We're researching intentions behind voting and its impact on participation and artifact quality.
  • Jobs-related posts on the network: Jobs ads are shown on sites other than SO — particularly on the international SOs, and some technical sites — and these can sometimes have specific concerns/issues. Posts relating to Jobs in general on these sites are also good candidates, especially given our recent jobs-related adjustments for technical SE sites.



Stats for the period:

Overall numbers:

A total of 230 questions had on them at some point during this period, and made their way into the process:

  • 104 (~45%) got the tag added during this period; of these 62 (~60%) got a staff response (22 [~21%] within 2 weeks of the tag getting added), and 57 (~55%) got removed.
  • 126 (~55%) already had the tag on them; of these 55 (~44%) got a staff response, and 58 (~46%) got removed. For a bit of nuance:
    • 122 (~53% of total; ~97% of above) had their tag added to them in the previous period ("leftovers" from previous periods).
    • 4 (~2% of total; ~3% of above) made their way through the process in some other ways (likely because they already had added to them at some point in the past, and an edit made it get into the workflow).

New this period:

A total of 104 questions across all Meta sites got added to them. The tag was added by a staff member on 58 (~56%) of these, and the other 46 (~44%) had the tag added by a moderator.

This means there was a smaller amount of posts escalated when compared to the previous period (-17 posts; ~-14%).

The majority of questions came from MSE, followed by MSO, and the rest Metas from all over the network:

  • 61 (~59%) from MSE.
  • 28 (~27%) from MSO.
  • 15 (~14%) from other child Metas.

Most of the questions escalated were bug reports or feature requests, but there were posts of all types escalated to staff (note that tags are not mutually exclusive):

A total of 62 questions (~60%) got some sort of response from staff after the tag was added, and 22 (~21%) got a response within 2 weeks of getting added. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and any sort of response was ~9d 3h (min. of ~0.1h; max. of ~34d 23h; median of ~5d 2h). Of these (sets below aren’t mutually exclusive):

  • 36 questions (~58% of above; ~35% of total) got commented on by staff. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and the comment getting posted was ~10d (min. of ~1min; max. of ~34d 23h; median of ~4d 9.5h). 24 (67% of above; 23% of total) of these questions got a comment within 2 weeks of the tag getting added to them.
  • 36 questions (~58% of above; ~35% of total) got answered by staff. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and the answer getting posted was ~7d 12.5h (min. of ~0.1h; max. of ~27d 7h; median of ~1d 3h). 27 (44% of above; 26% of total) of these questions got an answer within 2 weeks of the tag getting added to them.
  • 56 questions (~90% of above; ~54% of total) got edited by staff. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and the edit getting submitted was ~9d 13.5h (min. of ~0.1h; max. of ~34d 22; median of ~5d 3hh). 39 (63% of above; 38% of total) of these questions got an edit within 2 weeks of the tag getting added to them.

Most responses ended up resulting in a corresponding tag edit, and 57 (~55%) questions got removed. 56 of these got removed by staff, the other 1 by a moderator. Of these:

  • 37 questions (~65% of above; ~36% of total) got added to them.
  • 1 question (~2% of above; ~1% of total) got added to them.
  • 11 question (~19% of above; ~11% of total) got added to them.
  • 4 questions (~7% of above; ~4% of total) got added to them.
  • 4 questions (~7% of above; ~4% of total) didn’t get a new status tag added.

It’s also worth noting that of the 62 posts that got a response from staff, 37 had status-review added by staff, and the other 25 by mods:

  • 58 tagged by staff, 37 responded, 21 unresponded
  • 46 tagged by mods, 25 responded, 21 unresponded

From previous periods:

A total of 126 questions across all Meta sites still had on them at some point during this period. The tag had been added by a staff member on 47 (~37%) of these, and the other 79 (~63%) had the tag previously added by a moderator.

The majority of questions came from MSE, followed by network Metas, and MSO:

  • 56 (~44%) from MSE.
  • 26 (~21%) from MSO.
  • 44 (~35%) from other child Metas.

Most of the questions escalated were bug reports or feature requests, but there were posts of all types escalated to staff (note that tags are not mutually exclusive):

A total of 55 of these questions (~44%) got some sort of response from staff during this period, and after the tag was added. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and any sort of response was ~86d 13.5h (min. of ~37d 11h; max. of ~147d 6h; median of ~77d 1h). Of these (sets below aren’t mutually exclusive):

  • 24 questions (~44% of above; ~19% of total) got commented on by staff. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and the comment getting posted was ~84d 8h (min. of ~37d 11h; max. of ~147d 6h; median of ~75d).
  • 23 questions (~42% of above; ~18% of total) got answered by staff. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and the answer getting posted was ~86d 17h (min. of ~42d 10h; max. of ~141d; median of ~74d 6h).
  • 53 questions (~96% of above; ~42% of total) got edited by staff. The average time elapsed between the tag getting added and the edit getting submitted was ~87d 12h (min. of ~37d 11h; max. of ~147d 6h; median of ~81d 5h).

Most responses ended up resulting in a corresponding tag edit, and 58 (~46%) questions got removed. 56 of these got removed by staff, the other 2 by a moderator. Of these:

  • 25 questions (~43% of above; ~20% of total) got added to them.
  • 1 question (~2% of above; ~1% of total) for added to them.
  • 4 questions (~7% of above; ~3% of total) got added to them.
  • 4 questions (~7% of above; ~3% of total) got added to them.
  • 15 questions (~26% of above; ~12% of total) got added to them.
  • 5 questions (~9% of above; ~4% of total) got added to them.
  • 4 questions (~7% of above; ~3% of total) didn’t get a new status tag added.

It’s also worth noting that of the 55 posts that got a response from staff, 24 had status-review added by staff, and the other 31 by mods:

  • 47 tagged by staff, 24 responded, 23 unresponded
  • 79 tagged by mods, 31 responded, 48 unresponded
| improve this answer | |
  • JNat, since you are also the asker of this question the accepted answer does not get pinned to the top. Perhaps something to consider for the next iteration of this post. – Luuklag Jul 14 at 10:45
  • 1
    I am aware, yes. We'll prolly have someone else post it next time — since it's just the two answers at the moment, it didn't seem like a big problem to me :) – JNat Jul 14 at 10:58
  • Thats why I didn't suggest post disassociation / re-association ;) Also because the drama that came with that last time ;) – Luuklag Jul 14 at 11:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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