# Visual design changes to the review queues

The Public Platform team would like to announce another release in a series of planned work for the Review queues. This release focuses on refreshing the queue user interface in preparation for further improvements to the user experience. Starting today, we will roll out these changes in three phases across the network.

## Roll-out plan

We have planned for these UI changes to ship in three distinct phases affecting specific queues across the network. We will update this post as each phase is rolled out.

What Where When
• Close and reopen votes queue
• Stats/History view
Meta Stack Exchange
Meta Stack Overflow
Shipped!
January 28, 2021
Phase 2 Changes from Phase 1
• Suggested edits queue
• Low quality posts queue
• First posts queue
SuperUser
Shipped!
February 16, 2021
Phase 3 Changes from Phase 1 + 2
• Triage queue (SO only)
• Help and improvement queue (SO only)
All network sites Shipped!
February 23, 2021

## UI changes to all queues

All review queues will be adopting a new user interface that focuses on providing reviewers with context to make deliberate, thoughtful decisions on review tasks. We shared an initial design proposal in our product discovery phase and made sure to include that feedback into the final design.

### Responsive/Mobile-friendly design

We utilized Stacks to update the visual design in the review queues. As part of this update, we were also able to make the queues responsive and utilize mobile-friendly UI components.

### Changes

• Actions menu - We’ve removed the action buttons for a menu-style component. Selecting an action now requires a bit of pause and mitigates robo-reviewer behaviors we've seen in the past. Instructions are now always visible and associated with each action.

• More context - Users can now toggle between the review task and the necessary context (original question, answers, and comments) on the task page to assist in making educated decisions on a task. No need to open new browser tabs!

• Vote controls and follow feature - We heard from you that being able to vote directly on all tasks as well as the option to follow posts and receive updates on changes would help in the reviewing process. These features will be available in all queues.

• Filter button - We’re highlighting this feature (where it’s available) with a button and replacing the easily missed text-link.

• Review count - We’ve removed the badge progress bar in lieu of keeping track of how many tasks you can complete in a queue (don’t worry, the badge bar isn’t gone).

The review homepage has received a Stacks update as well, setting it up for forthcoming plans to create better onboarding for new reviewers. This page now provides a bit more information to new reviewers.

### Changes

• Only the queues available/earned by the user are clickable

• Available queues are prioritized to the top and then sorted by the number of tasks in each queue

All aspects of the Review queues are receiving some much needed design attention. Here a few more changes you can expect to see:

• There is more incentive to continue reviewing. The Steward badge can now be earned multiple times for every 1,000 reviews in each queue. If you have already completed 2,000 or more reviews, we will backfill any additional Steward badges that you have already earned. You can expect to see them accrue over the next few days.

• History view - Added and rearranged a few UI components so that users can better navigate and utilize the page

• Stats view - Updated badge progress bar

## Feedback

Please leave any feedback or bug reports related to this release below this post. We will be reviewing responses on this post for one month following Phase 3 (March 23, 2021). After March 23rd, please ask a new question to report any new issues.

• You have Dark Mode on ... Meta Stack Exchange? I knew about Meta.SO from Catija's screenshots in the stacks-editor announcement ...
– Glorfindel Mod
Jan 28, 2021 at 17:41
• @Glorfindel You sure that's not SO? Jan 28, 2021 at 17:42
• What's behind the decision to show the "questions list" view of the post title, its asker, and ask date instead of the normal question view? Likewise, why are you injecting the meta information about the review item in between the title and the post body? Both of those decisions are confusing to me. Jan 28, 2021 at 23:24
• Look at the dates and names in those screenshots, @Ollie / Glor - this is likely a local or dev-tier build running against a dump from the MSE database. Any theme can be selected in that context - dark-mode Physics, for instance. Which just leaves the question of why Lisa is NOT using dark-mode Physics?! 😏 Jan 29, 2021 at 1:46
• Thanks for adding responsive design. I use the site (math.se) exclusively on mobile device and it was a real pain handling reviews . Jan 29, 2021 at 2:21
• I think it would've been better if Phase 1 included an opt-in on Stack Overflow. Only ~900 users have access to the Close and reopen votes queues on Meta.SE and Mata.SO's queues are almost always empty :( Jan 29, 2021 at 9:31
• The giant gap between the title and body of the question is jarring and confusing. The body follows from the title, so putting the reason for flagging between the two like you did is like putting it between the first and second paragraph of the question. Except this is worse in some sense, as the title is now part of an entirely different thing and doesn't appear to be the title of what appears below at all any more. That thing also duplicates the score and answer count. Jan 29, 2021 at 21:11
• @StephenRauch Probably because the user profile image is not relevant info to have for reviewing posts, and screen real estate is limited as it is Jan 29, 2021 at 22:16
• Wow, you can update the Review Queues but still cannot deliver site designs? Some sites have been waiting nearly five years to get their look feel updated as promised. You implemented a generic site design which was supposed to standardize and make easier the rollout of the designs. That was a few years ago now, too. So, just curious? You have time for this but not for site designs? Jan 30, 2021 at 13:49
• @Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 I understand your frustration and I know that it's difficult to be waiting for so long. But we can't make site designs at this point. We have major needs for improving very basic elements of our sites so that they function well and so that people understand how to use them. This change improves the review experience network-wide, site designs benefit a single site and are purely cosmetic. On smaller sites, the improvements to review may not be as important but these are still valuable changes.
– Catija StaffMod
Jan 30, 2021 at 14:56
• @Trilarion it's not that they aren't important... but it's like trying to paint a house while the foundation is failing. Paint serves a purpose in protecting wood siding and making the house look approachable but I don't think anyone would argue that painting a house that has identical paint to the ones in the neighborhood but has foundation issues is the right choice - do you?
– Catija StaffMod
Jan 31, 2021 at 16:17
• @Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 They probably cannot deliver site designs because they are working on review queue updates (among other things). The review queues have been needing an overhaul for more than 5 years anyway. Sites can wait to have a new background image. Feb 1, 2021 at 16:10
• Does the new version include the ability to flag low-quality spam, or do we still need to open a new window for that?
– Mark
Feb 3, 2021 at 21:30
• @Braiam, yes, there is: the system can automatically decide that a post is low-quality, or someone could flag it as "very low quality" instead of "spam".
– Mark
Feb 16, 2021 at 21:54
• Answering for Lisa here @TylerH - we're following the answers to this question closely, so this is still the best place to share your thoughts.
– kristinalustig StaffMod
Feb 24, 2021 at 16:51

Let's be consistent in terms of the numbering using a comma separator for thousands:

• This was my bad! I fixed it, the fix will be out in the next build. Thanks for the report.
– kristinalustig StaffMod
Mar 3, 2021 at 17:08
• @kristinalustig: ...on second thought, that "Total" just below the badges is duplicated in the "All time" column. Is there anyplace else where one would see that "Total"? Otherwise it would seem kinda superfluous to have it duplicated so close to one another... Mar 4, 2021 at 17:06

Sometimes it is obvious what action should be taken in a review task (e.g. with spam, or rude/abusive posts).

It used to be more obvious that a review action couldn't be selected for the first few seconds after loading a review task - the options were buttons and the text was greyed out.

Now, there is a checkbox the text is not greyed out so the only visual cue to alert a user that the action is not yet available is the colour of the checkbox (which can be easy to miss).

Could something be done to make the fact that the options aren't available more obvious, e.g. grey the text out (though that may have dark mode readability implications), please?

In light mode:

In dark mode:

• This will be fixed in the next build. We actually have a class called .is-deleted which applies visual treatment to the label that we just weren't using. I had to give the "No action needed/I'm done" pair some special treatment because "I'm done" has a lot of text that will spend a fair amount of time in the disabled state. Mar 8, 2021 at 18:01

The suggested edit queue says

(or question, of course). That's not really correct; I'm not reviewing the post, I'm reviewing a suggested edit. The post type may be important enough to show, so how about something like

### Review the following suggested edit to an answer

• Thanks for the report! I've amended the language here so it goes "Review the following suggested _____ edit" <-- fill in the blank. Should be easier to understand, now. The fix will be in the following build, either this afternoon or tomorrow.
– kristinalustig StaffMod
Mar 9, 2021 at 18:28

Would it be possible in the suggested edit review queue to filter for tag-wiki edits?

Now that the review queues have been rolled out to international sites, an alignment issue has become apparent caused by singular/plural differences. This is Stack Overflow en español:

Please disregard the missing translations for the queue names. The queue with one item (Late Answers) is shifted to the left w.r.t. the other queues, and the number of items isn't horizontally centered with the word below it.

This issue does not appear on English sites, presumably because the words 'post' and 'posts' are much shorter than 'publicación' and 'publicaciónes'.

• Good catch! I fixed this so it'll work regardless of how long the word for "posts" is. I also put my local environment in Spanish by default so I can catch this stuff earlier. Thanks for the report. The fix will be rolled out a bit later today!
– kristinalustig StaffMod
Mar 3, 2021 at 17:10

Reviewing a suggested edit in a side-by-side mode is a nightmare. The two columns are too narrow:

But if I already have reviewed the posts or a consensus has been reached the width is fine:

• Feb 24, 2021 at 22:34
• (+1) With such thin columns when viewing on a 15" MacBook I now find myself scrolling/panning horizontally across code blocks a lot more to ascertain if/what suggested edits were made. Perhaps reducing the size of the outer (empty) page margin/padding and making the "Actions" box thinner will enable the "before" and "after" columns to be wider. The "Actions" box (in the third column) is currently the same width as the "before" and "after" columns - which just doesn't result in a good UX.
– RobC
Feb 25, 2021 at 15:11
• I've responded to this request elsewhere, but for now we're not going to address this particular request. I understand the concern but making this change would require a much larger set of changes that we're not prepared to make right now. We will potentially revisit it in the future.
– kristinalustig StaffMod
Mar 9, 2021 at 18:53

## Low Quality Posts queue

• The prominently displayed information is completely irrelevant to the task at hand as it is about the question only - hence
• I cannot see the answer and the question at the same time any more
• before: the one one the right side (where now the submission window is displayed) would immediately open in a new tab, thus keeping my review open.
• now: as @Glorfindel found out: clicking on the question title opens the answer which is somewhat unintuitive ;-)) and I have to take extra measures to open the link in a new tab.
• The link to the answer is there, but it's highly confusing: just click on the title of the question.
– Glorfindel Mod
Feb 24, 2021 at 14:35
• @Glorfindel thx for the finding - I edited my answer accordingly. Feb 24, 2021 at 17:03
• I agree that it should be possible to see the question and the answer at the same time (without needing to open the question in a new window/tab). Mar 8, 2021 at 3:09

## From the standpoint of a contributor who may have recently earned reviewing privileges…

the text, divorced as it is from the title, appears to be an answer.

First impression: for a split moment while I was reviewing, I thought the question consisted of a single line. This is not strange considering that short posts usually end up in the review heap. Of course, if one reads the text it becomes clear that is not the case but my concern is about the first impression.

If I can make a suggestion, the title and body should not be separated by a line break or a row of buttons because it's easy to overlook the delicate grey button that tells the user which page they are actually looking at.

Just saying. Don't shoot the messenger.

I think this layout could create confusion on the smaller sites for old and new contributors alike. For example,

Have the review queues changed or have I messed up my settings somehow?

• Related: this report by Gino Mempin. Mar 1, 2021 at 12:55
• It’s also really strange to see the last editor where the author of the post is normally, instead of next to the author. It still makes me have to look twice and I’ve been using these queues for a while. I don’t understand why everything except the last editor was moved up. Mar 1, 2021 at 12:56
• @ColleenV That’s covered by this report by Meta Andrew T.. Mar 1, 2021 at 12:57
• @SebastianSimon Yep, I’ve already upvoted that one. Mar 1, 2021 at 12:59
• @SebastianSimon the latter (by Andrew T) I had seen before posting mine but, sorry, the issue discussed in the post by Gino wasn't clear. I thought it was dealing with something else. Now on more careful inspection, I see why my post is related. Mar 1, 2021 at 13:01
• Yeah, I’m just trying to link similar reports together, but the design has been criticized in multiple places and it’s all a very similar story: the design is just messy. Mar 1, 2021 at 13:04

When choosing 'Edit and Reopen' in the Reopen Votes review queue, I get a non-responsive version of the edit page:

• Oh my, you weren't kidding. That's so non-responsive it's almost kind of funny. Thanks for the heads up (and thanks for all your bug reports in this thread!)
– kristinalustig StaffMod
Feb 1, 2021 at 16:27
• You're welcome, thanks in advance for fixing them :)
– Glorfindel Mod
Feb 1, 2021 at 16:27
• @Glorfindel this just happens for you when you go to low width on the edit screen? I can't repro
– Yaakov Ellis StaffMod
Feb 2, 2021 at 13:15
• @YaakovEllis I couldn't repro anymore either (and I just blew the only testcase), but perhaps it depends on the exact width of the browser? Judging from the screenshot, it's 638 pixels.
– Glorfindel Mod
Feb 2, 2021 at 14:12
• It is responsive for me all the way down to 200px. Marking as no-repro, if you can repro and give me steps, let me know.
– Yaakov Ellis StaffMod
Feb 3, 2021 at 10:12
• @YaakovEllis status-completed-by-accident?
– Glorfindel Mod
Feb 3, 2021 at 10:16
• @YaakovEllis probably related bugreport
– Glorfindel Mod
Mar 8, 2021 at 8:09

Request for "Review | Close votes".

Please add the possibility to also, directly vote on the corresponding question from that UI.

Rationale: it takes 3 downvotes to enable delete voting. Every person who does review close votes should be able to easily work towards that.

Yes, that simple. I often see bad questions that also deserve a downvote, but then I need to explicitly open that question in another browser tab to get to that. And far too often, the result is a bad question that was closed, and that deserves to be deleted (which the lazy OP don't do, they just walk away to not care about the garbage). And I would delete vote it right there, but too bad, other "close reviews" came without a downvote. So: stuck.

Other review queues include the "in place voting", so please add it this queue.

• I'm not sure I understand. We already added this feature to the new queues as shown in the screenshots in the question. Is there somewhere we missed? Feb 17, 2021 at 16:35
• @BrianNickel I might have overlooked that. I was under the impression that the SO pages would already show that. But if that is already there, or will be coming: perfect: Feb 17, 2021 at 17:37

When a post is deleted through spam or R/A flags by the Community user, the content is masked, as demonstrated by this post:

But in the review queues, the mask is gone, and it shows the actual content:

Which may be problematic for R/A posts. Is this the intended behavior, or a bug?

• This is existing behavior and will be somewhat of a hassle to implement for all the different queues. It's arguable that maybe we should show the post content because we're in a review context, like how it's still available in "revisions". It also doesn't have a big negative impact because it's only visible to high rep users and (I believe) users who performed the review. Feb 16, 2021 at 23:55

One of the action descriptions in the Suggested Edits queue is grammatically wrong:

This edit clearly improve the post.

That must be improves.

I'm unable to view the vote totals on a post in the Close/Reopen Votes queues. This seems new, as it was just fine before; can we fix it? Or is this the intended behavior?

• Do you mean what choices previous reviewers have taken on that review task, or the upvotes/downvotes on a post? Feb 13, 2021 at 13:44
• It was me, I broke this. Feb 16, 2021 at 23:13

"Side-by-side Markdown" mode doesn't work for deleted posts (probably because I am <10k?). “Inlined“ and “Side-by-side“ work correctly See this review, for example:

and it keeps loading forever... The request made to /revisions/.../diff?difftype=SideBySideMarkdown&begin=date&end=date fails with a 404 error.

• For me, it requested https://meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/91910/diff?difftype=SideBySideMarkdown&begin=1611729826&end=1611940873&_=1611940873430 and returned HTTP 200 with "No changes to display" and link to this full revision history (yeah, that's the link to the duplicate instead) internally, but not shown on the review page. Jan 29, 2021 at 17:20
• This will be fixed in the next build. Previous reviewers are granted special permission to see deleted content that they've reviewed and we weren't applying those same rules to the revisions. Feb 19, 2021 at 16:29

It's possible to send the wrong action in the First Posts review queue, as follows:

1. Select the No Action Needed radio button.
2. Do something, like voting, that would trigger the I'm Done radio button. The No Action Needed radio button is now selected but disabled.
3. Click Submit. The review action is now 'No Action Needed' but doesn't correspond with your actual actions on the post.

• This will be fixed in the next build. Performing an action will actually select "I'm done", while undoing all actions will deselect it. I expect there to be more discussion around this on other answers, but this satisfies this specific bug so I'm closing it out. Feb 22, 2021 at 15:55

Can the text of the Submit button be changed to better reflect what it does in cases where further steps are required, for example when rejecting an edit.

The submission of a review should mean "here is my completed review", but instead in these cases it means "I'd like to go to the next step of the current review". As a result having the button labelled "Submit" when there are further actions to take is confusing. Even after reviewing near enough 7k suggested edits I still found myself doubting if the action was correct.

It would make more sense for the button to be labelled "Continue". This works for single actions, like approval, as it indicates "Yes, I'm done, I'm ready to continue reviewing". And for reviews with multiple actions, like rejection, it indicates "Yes, I'm ready for the next step of the review".

Ideally I would like to see that when you click the Reject button (or Close button or whatever button is relevant for the current review), the reason dialog then appears where you can select an option (without submitting it).

Once selected the review form would be updated to say, "Reject: clearly conflicts with author's intent" or whichever action was chosen, at which point you could review your review before clicking Submit to finish the review (at which point the actual close vote etc. would be made).

In this case clicking Submit would make sense as you are submitting a final response for the review, rather than being part way through the process.

• This is really good feedback. We're not totally sure what to do with it yet but are considering "Continue" instead of "Submit" as an option. I'll leave this under review for now but we are definitely still thinking about it!
– kristinalustig StaffMod
Mar 9, 2021 at 18:54

### Review Progress

Now, while you are reviewing a post, you can not see your overall progress in a particular review type (Late Answers, First posts, etc.), only the daily progress.

If you click the Stats button, yes you can see the overall progress, but then you also lose the post that you were just reviewing.

Why not show both daily and overall progress together?

Why has the overall progress bar been removed?

• Especially on smaller sites the overall progress indicator can be more useful than the daily progress indicator, because 1. the queues are often so empty that you cannot hit the daily limit even if you wanted to and 2. because of the empty queues it takes a very long time to get badges and it's nice to see the progress (as opposed to bigger sites, i.e., SO, where many regular reviewers already have badges and there are many review items each day so the daily limit is more interesting than the badge progress). Feb 24, 2021 at 11:44

When reviewing a suggested edit on an answer, I wanted to see the answer on its own. I looked for a link to the answer, but couldn't find it.

It turns out that the presentation of the question at the top (with the votes, author, date and other information about the question) actually links to the answer. I can certainly see how it's useful, but 1. it's unintuitive to look for a link to the answer there and 2. it's misleading to have all the metadata of the question on a link to the answer.

There's a way to see the answer on its own inline, which is to select the “Side-by-side” view. That's not completely obvious, and I think it isn't accurate when there are diffs that overlap fancy formatting features such as MathJax (I haven't checked recently, maybe that's resolved now?).

I don't have review queue privileges on any site other than Stack Overflow, so the only testing of this new system I have been able to do is on Meta.SO.

However, in the "Close Votes" reviews, I have noticed that there is no longer a "link" 'button' presented to the reviewers, with which to open the post in a new tab/window. (The post's title is still a link, but that opens in the same window.) Is this button also gone from the other queues?

Viewing a post in its 'natural environment' is sometimes very useful – especially for the "Late Answers" queue, where I often use that new tab to compare the post under review with existing answers, as a check for copy/pasting or other forms of plagiarism.

It seems to me that it would be very easy (if not trivial) to add this link back, probably in the right-hand portion of the display, where the "Admin" and "Developer" options are shown (for those who have access to such tools).

• Simply middle-click or Ctrl + left-click the link to open in a new tab. Feb 4, 2021 at 0:04
• @SebastianSimon Thanks. I use a touchpad mostly, so middle-clicking (though possible) isn't that convenient. I just got used to the "link" button and felt that its absence was possibly an oversight. Feb 4, 2021 at 0:09
• @SebastianSimon Some people are doing reviews on mobile phones. yeah still possible, but even more inconvenient. UIs should provide the functionality that the user using the UIs need. Feb 4, 2021 at 7:31
• I've updated the link in so that the question title opens in a new tab instead of in the same tab. That fix will be in the next build, out today or tomorrow. Thanks for the report!
– kristinalustig StaffMod
Mar 9, 2021 at 18:56
• @kristinalustig Thanks very much. That change makes a big difference to my review process. Mar 12, 2021 at 20:32

The site logo and the link at the bottom link to the homepage of the site. The logo links to /questions; this feels weird, especially since the breadcrumb seems to suggest /review is a subpage of /questions.

• In response to other feedback, we've gone ahead and removed the breadcrumbs from this page entirely. The change will be out in the next build, today or tomorrow.
– kristinalustig StaffMod
Mar 9, 2021 at 19:00

In the Suggested Edits queue, the 'Proposed x hours ago' and 'Follow' are so alike, that it doesn't really stand out that 'Follow' is a (clickable) action.

Has there been any thought given to how changing the number of steward badges awarded will impact the relative value of badges?

With the current rules users can easily have more gold badges than bronze badges. It also creates a discrepancy with the remaining badges, like Copy-Editor, Marshall, etc; while devaluing the relative overall weight of tag badges...

Other gold badges that could be awarded multiple times were extremely hard to get (while reviewing in queues like FP seems potentially trivial by comparison.)

This choice seems to go a long way in promoting reviewing. But at the cost, in a gamification sense, of unbalancing a long standing status-quo. (Looking at gaming reviews this could be considered a risky choice.)

The title of this thread "Visual design changes" doesn't fully capture a "game changing" alteration to overall badge rules.

• As a dedicated reviewer who spends at least two or more hours reviewing posts out of a sense of duty to maintaining site quality, I welcome this this change. While some users on math.se never review but spend all their time answering questions and getting a new gold or silver here are there, my dozens of thousands of reviews have gone unnoticed. I'm not looking to game reviews; I simply seek fitting recognition of contributions to the site already afforded those who only answer posts. Jan 28, 2021 at 21:57
• I don't think this diminishes the value of a gold badge - assuming that they have any particular value. The reality is that the total number of people with this badge remains unchanged while we recognize and appreciate the efforts of people who don't just stop reviewing at 1k reviews. There's someone on SO with 100k and I think that having 100 gold badges for that monumental effort as a more visible indicator of participation than the somewhat hidden top reviewers page is fair and worthy of recognition. We do much to endlessly recognize posting but little to recognize curation.
– Catija StaffMod
Jan 29, 2021 at 1:05
• @amWhy I just noticed, the possible change to the steward badge was announced "Improving Review Queues - Design overview II: Changing review bans and other new features" but no one mentioned it in the answers. There wasn't any wider discussion on this specific change. Jan 29, 2021 at 1:07
• You make a good point about parity with other badges for curation actions and I'd love to have a discussion of other badges that may benefit from being repeatable rather than one-time. I invite you to start a separate discussion or FR here on MSE to consider where else we can further recognize these valuable efforts by our community. No promises but I'd love to see the discussion.
– Catija StaffMod
Jan 29, 2021 at 1:08
• @Catija I will post an FR today here on MSE, I don't mean to sound "argumentative" (I was considering what the right way write this post should be). I'll try to make a good post. Jan 29, 2021 at 1:14
• "...while reviewing in queues like FP seems potentially trivial by comparison..." Doing 1000 reviews is still a lot of work, if you are not robo-reviewing. Doing it multiple times even more. There is rep and there are badges of different colors. I never really understood the conversion rates between all of them. I can only say that I tend to be more aware of the rep that users have than of the number and distribution of badges. Jan 29, 2021 at 10:34
• @Catija About There's someone on SO with 100k and I think that having 100 gold badges for that monumental effort as a more visible indicator of participation than the somewhat hidden top reviewers page is fair and worthy of recognition and You make a good point about parity with other badges for curation actions I suspect there are people on SO with an insane amount of flags too and I would also say it is only fair for them to be awarded the same way with multiple Marshal badges. Jan 30, 2021 at 19:03

Overall, these changes look very nice, indeed! However, like many others, I haven't been able to test them, in fury … the only active site on which I have review privileges is Meta SO, and the queues there have been empty since this announcement.

My main concern (also expressed in Shog9's penultimate paragraph) is this:

There is more incentive to continue reviewing. The Steward badge can now be earned multiple times for every 1,000 reviews in each queue. If you have already completed 2,000 or more reviews, we will backfill any additional Steward badges that you have already earned. You can expect to see them accrue over the next few days.

While I have no problem with the concept of rewarding and/or incentivising reviewers, the prospect of such 'easy' gold badges1 may simply attract more "robo-reviewers".

Would it be better (or even possible), perhaps, to have somewhat steeper criteria for awarding additional Steward badges. For example, at 2,000 reviews, then 4,000, then 8,000, etcetera. Or only at every 5K or 10K reviews? Users reaching 10K review milestones are relatively rare events2, and the award could be offered conditionally, subject to approval by moderators or staff (or some other select group); that way, obvious robo-reviewers – who, ultimately, make more work for the 'good' (i.e. experienced and conscientious) curators – would not be seen to benefit from their gamification of the review process.

Nevertheless, my aforementioned concerns notwithstanding, I have to admit to looking forward to the circa 45 extra gold badges I'm likely to be awarded between now and the end of February. 😊

1 For example, on Stack Overflow, there are often 3 or 4 review queues for which the daily quota for reviewers is 40: Three or four more Gold Badges every 25 days!

2 A quick look at SO's Close Vote Review Stats suggests around 150 such "10K" events in the entire history of the site. Once that backlog were cleared, the occurrence of new events would probably be sufficiently infrequent so as to not overload the 'approval committee'.

• FWIW, the original rationale for capping the badge at 1K was that at some point extrinsic motivation fails - if the work isn't intrinsically rewarding, folks should be encouraged to STOP DOING IT. Review shouldn't need a static group grinding away every day; like the site itself, it should have a constant influx of new people and a core group of folks providing oversight and guidance. My personal preference would be to encourage folks like the SOCVR and facilitate their interactions with review. Jan 29, 2021 at 18:52
• Maybe there should be somethink like the Steward badge for doing lots of reviews in the same tag. Jan 31, 2021 at 19:09

In the main Review Queues webpage there are "History" links.

If we choose the History for Reopen Votes there is an "Action" column, choosing one of the prior Reopen reviews presents a screen such as this; showing no Next button, nor proclaiming that all available reviews have been completed:

If we choose the History for Close Votes there is an "Action" column, choosing one of the prior Close reviews presents a screen such as this; showing either a Next button, ...

... or explaining that all available reviews have been completed. To see this image click here, keep clicking next until it appears:

The Reopen Queue is missing its "Next" button and, at completion of available reviews, its 'reviews completed message'. Note that there is another feedback explaining that the "Next" button should be a single action; I agree with that, I'm just reporting the inconsistency in the current implementation.

• This appears to have been fixed a few minutes ago, I'll leave adding the red tag to the feedback to the person who made the fix. Screenshots. Thanks for the rapid repair.
– Rob
Feb 2, 2021 at 22:13

Could we have the "Tools" and "Meta reviews" buttons back on the /review page? On the old page in the top right corner was a "Tools" button that took you to /tools. At the bottom of the page under the normal reviews was also a similar button to take you to meta/review. Could these buttons be added back in? And preferably could they both be added into the top right, there's enough space there and it means the "Meta reviews" button won't look odd and lost at the bottom of the page.

• This seems to have been status-completed: the "Tools" button is on the top right corner (shown only if you have enough rep to access), and there's a link to meta review queues on the bottom. Feb 16, 2021 at 22:18

When performing a Close votes review task on a narrow screen, the suggested duplicate(s) are truncated, e.g. in this Meta Stack Overflow task, where the full title of question that the task relates to is shown on multiple lines whereas the duplicate target is truncated to fit in one line:

Here the full title of the target is "If you do something on keyup, make sure you got the associated keydown first".

Given that (I am assuming) the duplicate targets are shown in the review task in part to save the reviewer from having to click on the link to view the question, it'd be nice to save the reviewer from having to click on the link to view the full title of the question.

When hovering over the avatars for the "Recent reviewers" in the /review page a review stats card appears showing a summary of the user's review stats:

Currently this only appears for the six users who have most recently performed reviews in a given queue. Could this expanded information appear when hovering over avatars in other places, e.g. in the stats pages?

I'm aware it's possible to view this manually by using a 'hidden feature', (e.g. Glorfindel's close vote information on Meta Stack Exchange is at https://meta.stackexchange.com/review/user-info/2/295232), but this is undocumented (and a faff).

Translation for "Total: $count$" was lost (e.g. on ruSO):

Recently added translation is not used now.

This issue is probably related to that feature-request .

• It's now available, but untranslated at 66c4c5112f455a19afde47829df363fa Mar 9, 2021 at 19:21
• @BrianNickel why is the count variable excluded from the sentence? Mar 9, 2021 at 19:30
• Oof, that's a fair point. I had thought it was because of pluralization, but it looks like the old localization was accepting a number. So probably a minor accident that wasn't caught in review. I'll see about squeezing this into another PR. Mar 9, 2021 at 19:34

I see no reason why there’s new line inside Low Quality Posts queue name. There’s enough place for text to be on the same row (look at the above row with queue description).

Screenshot from ruSO, but other non-English sites (with long enough text) are also affected.

Same user listed twice on audit review:

• That's because they did review it twice, somehow. Maybe the event got bound twice or there's something unexpected in the code? This is an extremely rare event, having happened 5 times in total on ruSO and 5 times last year on SO. Since it looks fairly benign and very uncommon, I'm inclined to do nothing for now. Mar 9, 2021 at 18:45