237

All good things must come to an end and so must the review queues project. This project would not have been successful without the community. Thank you all for the hours of reviewing, testing, and sharing your feedback along the way. With that said, this will be our final major release. In this post, I’ll summarize the changes we’ve made to the overall queue workflows and the specific adjustments to the Reopen votes queue.

Changes to the First posts queue

First posts → First questions AND First answers queue

  • To avoid context switching, and recognizing that asking and answering require slightly different skill sets, we are creating two separate queues to handle the individual post types.
  • The purpose of these queues remains the same – helping new users learn how to use the site. With that in mind, reviewers will be able to choose from three actions: Looks OK, Edit, and Share feedback.
  • It can take time to develop the skills to write a good question or answer. A user’s first few posts may require extra attention and to help new users get the hang of things, First questions and First answers will accept up to three posts per user if their first couple aren’t successful.
  • Reviewers are encouraged to leave comments for the post-author, but now they can also choose from a few options of canned feedback which will appear as a comment from the Community account.

Canned feedback options appears in modal Canned feedback appears as a comment from Community

Changes to the Reopen votes queues

  1. “Significant edit” option

    Post edit screen with significant edit option

    • This feature appears when editing a closed question and allows editors to indicate if they’re making a minor edit (i.e. grammar, spelling) or a significant edit. By submitting an edit for review, the editor agrees that their edit attempts to resolve the question’s close reason(s) and should be considered for reopening in the Reopen votes queue.

    • Once a significant edit has been submitted, editors are still able to return to the edit screen and make further adjustments. Significant edit status will also be indicated in both revision history and post timeline pages.

    Post edit screen with significant edit submitted

  2. Significant edits in the Suggested edits queue

    • Users who do not have enough reputation to submit an edit outright will have their significant edits go into the Suggested edits queue accompanied by a post notice.

    Significant edit in Suggested edits queue post notice

    • Actions in the Suggested edits queue will change based on whether the edit has been flagged as a Significant edit. In the case of a Significant edit, reviewers will be able to Approve and reopen or Approve and leave closed.
    • It takes two approve votes (any combination of Approve and reopen or Approve and leave closed) to remove the task out of the Suggested Edits queue. If at least one of the votes is Approve and reopen, a new task will be created in the Reopen votes queue.
  3. Leave closed reasons

    • If a Reopen votes reviewer elects to leave a question closed, the reviewer will be presented with a “Leave closed reason” modal (similar to the close reason modal) that will return feedback to the editors. For example, if a question was originally closed because it lacked details, it may still require further details even after an edit, or new issues with the question might present themselves like asking too many questions at once.

    Reasons to leave a question closed appear in modal

    • In addition to inbox notifications, the closed question’s post notice will also be updated with more information.

    Post notice updated with new close reason

  4. Multiple opportunities to send question for review

    • We’ll be launching this feature without any limits – users will be able to submit multiple edits on individual posts. We’ll take a look at the data in a few weeks to see if any abuse of the feature has occurred and take mitigation steps as needed.

    • [Stack Overflow only] Reviewers will not see posts that

      1. they’ve voted to reopen since last closed, and
      2. voted to close since the post was last edited.

      Moderators are exempt from this restriction.

  5. Bug fix: “Don't cause the reopen vote of the user, whose edit pushed the closed question into the reopen queue, to invalidate the review”

    This bug fix is also included as part of this release. You can read Kyle’s detailed response here.

Other changes to the Review queues

  1. Turn off the Help & improvement queue

    • H&I has been our least productive queue. Over the last 90 days, only 9 tasks went into the queue each day on average, compared with 2,215 for First Posts (our busiest queue) and 188 for Reopen Votes (our second-to-last busiest). Consequently, this queue will be turned off. It will remain in the listing until its current items are exhausted, and will then be removed. History for and badges awarded from this queue will remain as they are.
    • With the addition of the First questions queue, we expect that questions with potential can get the same assistance they need more quickly.
    • Questions that would have ended up in this queue from Triage (with a Needs community edit action) will now enter the First questions queue.
  2. New actions for Late answers queue

    The Late answers queue has been successful in identifying and removing low quality posts, repeat answers, and spam. Reviewers were able to take any number of actions on a task, so the objective of this queue wasn’t all that obvious. To clear up any ambiguity and focus on identifying problematic answers, we’ve defined three actions: Looks OK, Edit, and Delete.

  3. Keep Triage queue (Stack Overflow only)

    • Triage will continue to handle questions only.
    • Triage will be available on all sites, but only turned on by default on Stack Overflow. Have a meta discussion and ask a moderator to if your site wishes to add the Triage queue.
  4. Name change: Low quality posts → Low quality answers (Stack Overflow only)

    This queue will continue to handle answers only.

  5. Misc. We won't issue new Reviewer or Steward badges for the queues that were turned off, but this won’t have any effect on badges already earned in these respective queues.

    Along with all these changes, here is an updated visual of the Review queues map –

    Flowchart of review queues

What about issue X, Y, Z?

As mentioned earlier, this is our final major release. We will not be pursuing the proposed suggested tasks feature at this time. We didn't feel that it was going to significantly increase curation activities on the site and therefore didn't warrant the high development cost.

There are still a few outstanding issues related to suggested edits that have proved to be technically challenging. We’ll respond in those original Meta request posts as soon as we decide on a course of action.

Feedback

Please leave your feedback and any bugs you may discover related to this release below this post. We will be monitoring this post until Friday, September 10th. Report any further issues after September 10th as new questions on Meta.

45
  • 71
    "appear as a comment from the Community account." - Neat!
    – Nick
    Aug 26 at 13:50
  • 6
    "Looks OK, Edit, and Delete" for Late Answers. Does that mean 500 reputation point users now effectively have Delete privileges? Or does that send the post to another queue? Aug 26 at 14:34
  • 10
    @Xnero You're posting a lot of comments that are already mentioned in answers or that should be answers - please don't use comments for this purpose.
    – Catija StaffMod
    Aug 26 at 15:01
  • 19
    As a side note, in SOpt lots of new messages are in English. I know there's a "solution" to this (go here and translate), but honestly, I'm getting tired of this "SE changes site -> messages are in English -> community translates" cycle. I'd love to see a better solution, that doesn't require the community acting after the change is made.
    – hkotsubo
    Aug 26 at 16:19
  • 5
    Too bad this is featured roght now. I'd rather see Aaron's post about removing the top bar preferences featured :(
    – Luuklag
    Aug 26 at 17:37
  • 12
    Late Answers requires a downvote before being about to select delete. I love wasting my rep on DVs. I'm sure everyone wants to waste 20/40 rep going through the queue each day. Absurd. Aug 26 at 18:31
  • 9
    @JourneymanGeek posts with 0 score can receive delete and recommend deletion votes (at least in the old queue... I'm not clear yet on exactly how the new one works, but I am 100% on board with encouraging people to downvote when voting to delete. One should always be readier to downvote than to delete!)
    – Zanna
    Aug 27 at 8:06
  • 6
    @Zanna I have reservations about these kind of statements. I've seen more irresponsible drive-by voting than perhaps you'd imagine. Not just that, but also taunting users in the comments who haven't earned enough rep to downvote back. It only takes 1 high-rep user to throw a low rep into the question ban.
    – bad_coder
    Aug 27 at 23:24
  • 7
    @TylerH - Thanks for the info. I respect the fact that the new design can be useful on other sites where I'm not active. I was trying to say that it'd have been better if the old response options weren't completely removed - they could have been kept along with the new design.
    – TRC
    Aug 28 at 4:07
  • 5
    @bad_coder What do you mean? I said one should be more willing to downvote than to delete. If one thinks a post should be removed from the site altogether, one should surely be willing to downvote it. Would it be less bad if instead of casually downvoting, people casually delete-voted?
    – Zanna
    Aug 28 at 4:37
  • 23
    Did you even test this on non-tech sites? Why does it post comments about code on humanities sites??? Aug 29 at 5:55
  • 12
    @curiousdannii That's hardly the only such wording blunder. Here's another: apparently now all answers must be "solutions".
    – tchrist
    Aug 29 at 15:23
  • 20
    I initially upvoted this because there are some good things here, but I've changed it to a downvote after working in the new First Q&A queues. The number of options in these queues is severely limited -- I keep having to perform actual moderation (like vote to close) and then click "Looks OK" to finish the review for a post that is clearly not OK. I understand that there will be some bugs at first, but the workflow seems like it was designed by people who don't have much (if any) experience actually reviewing first posts -- many of which are not OK and/or need more than an edit or "feedback".
    – Null
    Aug 30 at 15:40
  • 11
    You know, if you guys want, there's a significant number of us here who would be happy to beta test this stuff out and give you some real user/curator feedback before you 'Final release' it out onto the entire broad spectrum of sites like this.
    – ouflak
    Aug 31 at 15:51
  • 7
    @TobyHarnish, Meta sites aren't just for questions. They are also for announcements, regular updates, and site discussions.
    – ouflak
    Aug 31 at 20:42

119 Answers 119

1 2 3
4
4

Sorry, but FWIW I hate the new thingy. Too many steps, but mainly too locked-in to a hard-coded sequence of steps, with no turning back. Bad UI design, IMHO.

One simple example (and yes, similar to what some others have said): You must decide up front whether to OK a post or edit it. Once you choose Edit you're done - no going back. An Edit apparently implies OK after editing. No, it doesn't. You might want to skip or close or edit again or...

Why would you need to decide the ultimate fate before being able to try to improve the post? We used to be able to edit, comment, save, wash, rinse, repeat,... whatever -- before deciding on a review fate.

That's just one tiny example. This seems to have been designed by someone who's never used an editor. Reviewing involves editorial actions. The hard-coded flowchart here is horribly misguided, not to mention a time sink and a general bother.

It wasn't broken. Shoudn'ta tried to fix it. Or shoulda gotten a high-school intern to improve it.

But maybe the real aim was to get cut-and-dried metadata about reviews, rather than let humans use their brains. Multiple-choice on steroids, for automatic pigeon-holing? The result will be poorer quality reviews, and likely an abandonment of some reviewing.

Just one opinion.

4

Similar to this bug which has already been fixed: if you go to an open First Answers or First Questions review item in a private browser window, you don't see the "Please log in to review First Answers" banner you'd see in e.g. Close Votes, but an empty banner. Also, the post is grayed out.

1
4

A review task in the first answers queue had multiple users review it:

Two reviews on one review task

1
4

Related to this other feature request.

Since the First Posts queue is retired, can the "How do I use the First posts queue?" link be removed from the Help center's general preview? It would still be accessible from the "View more" link, but now there'd be no more "obsolete" info on a page that's frequently linked to, or looked at by, new users; which sounds slightly better in terms of UX.

It could be replaced in the general preview by a link to the Close votes queue help page; linking to First Questions without having its twin "First Answers" on the same page would seem unbalanced.

1
  • First Posts queue help center page has been replaced by First questions and First answers and no longer shows in the Help Center's general preview or the "View more" link.
    – Anita Taylor StaffMod
    Sep 14 at 21:09
3

Name change: Low quality posts → Low quality answers (Stack Overflow only)

This queue will continue to handle answers only.

Why only on Stack Overflow? In several discussions on the purpose of having low-quality reviews for questions (as opposed to close reviews), the only (reasonable) answer was that it makes sense on Stack Overflow due to its scale. Everywhere else, it only slows the process down since another step is needed to bring the question to the close queue. After all, closing (or improving) is all that can be done with low-quality questions anyway. Also see: Why can questions be flagged but not closed for very low quality?

With low-quality reviews for questions being gone on Stack Overflow, what reason is there to keep it at all? So, why not send all questions flagged or auto-flagged as low-quality to the close queue directly?

Ceterum censeo: Remove the very low quality flag for questions (or altogether), since other flags already serve the same purpose.

3

First Question queue audit

On this audit. All I want to do is comment to ask for more details - more focused than the canned answers.

So I add a comment and then when I hit save, a box pops up, saying this is an audit. So there isn't any use for me to exit and a good way to find audits which is not good.

This is a more general issue. The share feedback button needs to give more options or allow us to enter a comment.

3

Missing share link

The share link under the post is missing:

Missing share link in First Questions

There is only follow and flag. It was there previously in the first posts review and is same present in the late answers review:

Share link in Late answers

3
  • The link to the Question is there in the post summary for the post you are reviewing. It links directly to the Question/Answer. However, they have removed all links in the tabs with the "Question" or "Other answer(s).." including the comment links :O Aug 31 at 10:10
  • 2
    This was already reported in this other answer and a comment by Kristina states that all links will be added
    – Tomerikoo
    Aug 31 at 10:19
  • By the post summary, do you mean the title? That gives the long URL, but the short (share) URL is no longer available. Aug 31 at 10:19
3

The "Staff" label is not aligned with the user detail in the review queue.

1
3

In the First questions queue, if there is a pending suggested edit on the post and you press the inline edit button after reviewing the suggested edit you are taken out of the First questions queue and find yourself in the Suggested edits queue.

Happened to me in this post.

3

The "Flag" option is missing in the Low Quality Posts queue:

enter image description here

This option is important even in this queue since it may be necessary to flag for a moderator's attention (e.g., to remove PII, convert to a comment, notify the moderators that user(s) are being rude, etc.). Without this option I have to exit the review to raise the flag, but users should never need to exit the review in order to properly review it.

Frankly, I don't understand why any of these options are removed from the post in the review queue in the first place -- it's not like they take up a lot of space.

3

The Reopen Votes queue lacks an option to add a comment to the post, edit it without reopening it, or flag it:

enter image description here

Several times I have wanted to add a free form comment to tell the querent why the post still isn't acceptable (perhaps the post had multiple issues and the querent only addressed one of them). Without an option to add a comment to the post, however, I have to exit the review to help the querent with a comment.

Similarly, there is no flag option. What if the querent added some rude text in frustration over the closure of the question, and I want to raise a flag to notify the moderators that they need to keep an eye on (and perhaps mod message) the user? To do that I again have to exit the review. And what if I want to edit out the rude text myself without voting to reopen -- again, I have to exit the review to do that.

Once again, I don't understand why the review queues are missing options normally visible on a post -- they don't take up much space but are sometimes needed.

3

Adding "Edit and share feedback".

Say that you are reviewing a post that has too much code. You can edit out the unnecessary code, but you also want to share feedback, so the user knows why you edited and hopefully won't make the same mistake again with future posts. To do so, you would have to open the post in another tab, click "Share feedback", then edit it in the other tab.

Adding an this option would make situations like this a lot less cumbersome and would also encourage such behavior.

6
  • 2
    If you want to add a custom message explaining why you edited, there's an "Add a comment"-button (looks like a link) under the post, no? Aug 28 at 14:24
  • @Unconsidered It wouldn't be from Community, you wouldn't have the canned responses, and most people probably wouldn't consider it without an option being present...
    – Anonymous
    Aug 28 at 14:27
  • 2
    Yeah.. sticking one's head in the sand under the Community user isn't my idea of being a good member. There's also no way that a canned comment could possibly be specific enough. Putting in a comment as "This has been edited because it needed to be edited" is hardly helpful. I didn't try to edit one, but I'm expecting there's an edit summary to be filled out? Aug 28 at 14:30
  • @Unconsidered "There's also no way that a canned comment could possibly be specific enough" - in my example scenario, there is: a post has too much code, you edit out the unnecessary code, then add the "too much code" comment. "I didn't try to edit one, but I'm expecting there's a summary to be filled out?" - users (especially new ones) rarely read that.
    – Anonymous
    Aug 28 at 14:37
  • 3
    I see. One canned comment for "Too much code". What about "Too much fluff"? Or "Not enough inline code", "Missing code block", "Grammar corrections", "Wrong tags", "Not enough line code and wrong tags", "Too much fluff and needed listing of items".. you see where this is headed, right? :) To account for all the scenarios, there's only the option of making it possible to make custom comments under the Community user.. and that is just ripe for abuse :/ So.. we're back to posting a comment as ourselves or using the edit summary. Aug 28 at 14:55
  • 1
    The request is very similar to this and this.
    – 41686d6564
    Aug 28 at 17:18
3

I would like to see the all queues link somewhere (maybe at the top, next to the title, or like a button/tab) on each review page as a quick way to choose next queue where I can participate.

All queues

Currently I have to use top bar, tap Review queue icon, then select "all queues" link.

1
3

In the First Questions & First Answers queues, the Flag and Edit post menu items are missing in from posts shown on the completed/ non-active review page:

Non-active review page, with post shown that's missing the "Flag" and "Edit" options

These options were added back to posts that you're actively reviewing, but they're still missing in this case.

3

Inconsistent font size in the reopen review box.

Maybe it’s my phone’s fault (though I can’t think of why it would be), but I reviewed a post for reopening and this is what I saw:

enter image description here

These should use the same font size.

4
  • Finally looking into this and I cannot repro it. Is this still happening for you? For now, I'm going to status-norepro.
    – kristinalustig StaffMod
    Sep 17 at 19:41
  • @kristinalustig I'll let you know next reopen review I do. Sep 17 at 19:43
  • @kristinalustig It is still happening for me, exactly as pictured in the post here. Sep 18 at 23:18
  • @kristinalustig Still getting this. Sep 27 at 14:43
3

Thank you for fixing the bug that prevented the modals in the two new queues to be movable.

Unfortunately, the new "leave closed" modal seems to have the same problem:

Trying unsuccessfully to move the "leave closed" modal

3

- duplicate of Navigating to review /stats and /history causes the URL to change to a specific review item

The URL for the Stats or History for a review queue changes from /review/{queue}/stats or /review/{queue}/history to /review/{queue}/taskID once the page is loaded.

Clicking the refresh button then loads the review task rather than refreshing the stats/history page.

This seems to happen across all queues where I am able to perform more review tasks (i.e. where I've not hit the daily limit or where there are tasks available to perform).

Reproduced on { Stack Overflow and Meta Stack Overflow }, tested on { Chrome 93.0 on Android 11, Chrome 93.0 on Windows 10, and Firefox 92.0 on Windows 10 }.

This also breaks navigation, e.g.:

  • Navigate to History (the page ends up with the URL /review/{queue}/taskID)
  • Click on a review task in my history
  • Press back
  • Instead of going back to my history, /review/{queue}/taskID is loaded instead.
1
  • 2
    Want to know the fun part? :) This is just a side effect of the queue attempting (and succeeding in doing so) to load another review when you go to "stats" and "history"... If you open devtools, you'll see a juicy error in the console because the code did not expect to be loaded on these tabs. I highly suspect this is an aftermath of fixing the bug with not being able to click on "learn more" in tabs other than "review tasks" Sep 20 at 9:43
2

As a heads-up, since Increase close and reopen vote weight for tag badge holders - Meta Stack Overflow has not been implemented yet, I'm still on the strike.
Moreover, there's no mention of if it was even considered.

Reducing the amount of needed close/reopen votes from 5 to 3 was helpful, but this would reduce it even further -- since as was shown, the power of reviewers at SO is too inadequate for the workload for even that to fully compensate.

0
2

I came across an answer in the First Answers queue to an off-topic question. The question was asking about recommendations for software on Stack Overflow, and someone answered it. What now? The suggestions in Share Feedback hardly seem relevant; the answer is clear and doesn't need more information. Is Looks OK the proper response to this?

1
  • 3
    Looks Ok is probably correct. If a question is off-topic but the answer is valid then generally it remains. The issue is with the question, not the answer. If the question is closed, then answer will remain, unless the question gets "roomba'd" - in which case both the question and the answer will disappear. You may find that some people downvote answers to off-topic questions as a way to discourage answers to questions that are off-topic, but I personally don't consider it a good practice. This doesn't seem to be a bug with the new review queues - it has always been like this, more or less Sep 4 at 3:29
2

There is weird word wrapping on some queues for non-English sites, e.g. here:

Learn more word wrapping

2

Review first answers

  1. opened review queue
  2. skipped few answers
  3. found one non-answer
  4. flagged it as being non-answer
  5. now what ?

enter image description here

8
  • 1
    Already reported here and here.
    – 41686d6564
    Aug 28 at 11:48
  • 6
    @41686d6564 and still no feedback from SO team on any of them? Great Friday release folks!
    – Kos
    Aug 28 at 12:01
  • ..now you've done your citizen work. You click Skip, you do not get an added review task for a progress to the badge-medal, but knowing you did your flagging, you can sleep well? :) Aug 28 at 12:37
  • 2
    @Unconsidered And then another user gets that review task, until inevitably someone decides to click "Looks OK" for whatever reason...
    – Anonymous
    Aug 28 at 14:24
  • @Anonymous Yes, or until it gets fixed. Why set yourself up for a review-ban if you can just wait it out? Aug 28 at 14:25
  • @Unconsidered I'm not saying I'll do it, just that eventually someone is bound to.
    – Anonymous
    Aug 28 at 14:26
  • @Anonymous So.. let them. The post has already been flagged. You can't prevent people from making wrong decisions. Aug 28 at 14:27
  • 1
    @Unconsidered Say 1 in 20 reviewers click "Looks OK". Normally a non-answer would have a 1 in 20 chance of being reviewed incorrectly, but with this change, it has a much higher chance.
    – Anonymous
    Aug 28 at 14:29
1

In the new version Late Answers, the Recommend Deletion radio button leads to a dialog that sort of repeats the flag link.

For example, for a link only answer, you can both use the flag link to flag NAA as one used to do (and then the answer would be shunted off to the Low Quality Posts queue),

Flag dialog - NAA selected

and, in the new version of the Late Answers review, also click the Recommend Deletion radio button and then select "Link only answer (not spam)".

Recommend deletion dialog - Link only selected

Why the duplication? This confusing UI leads to a poor UX.

I'm sure that it wasn't like this previously.

6
  • Does adding a comment auto-flag the post? Because if not, then one needs to perform both actions. Aug 31 at 10:21
  • 'Recommend deletion' has always shown this dialog. It's entirely different from the flag button. a) Clicking 'Recommend deletion' actually votes to delete the answer. b) You can submit without selecting a reason. c) If you select a reason/comment, that comment gets posted on your behalf. None of that happens with the flag button.
    – 41686d6564
    Aug 31 at 10:24
  • @41686d6564 - I'm sure that it has changed. The recommend deletion option used to be in the Low Quality Posts review, not the late answers, didn't it..? Previously it was just "I'm Done", and "No action needed". The recommend deletion addition is new (to Late Answers), and hence the duplication. Aug 31 at 10:36
  • Ah, you're right. I didn't pay attention that you were talking about late answers. Anyway, the flag button also exists in the Low Quality Answers queue. So, the same "duplication" is there too. Maybe you want to rephrase your answer into a [feature-request] of some sort? E.g., do you suggest, removing the flag button? Restoring the old UI? And what about the LQA queue?
    – 41686d6564
    Aug 31 at 10:37
  • BTW, you can see how it used to look like in this answer.
    – 41686d6564
    Aug 31 at 10:39
  • @41686d6564 - Ah, nice one. I was looking for a screenshot. I ended up referring to the Late Answers and First Posts section in this answer to What are the review queues, and how do they work?. Yes, I should probably rephrase it to be a feature request. As it stands I am merely pointing out the duplication of the UI. Aug 31 at 10:42
1

Due to comments and downvotes, I want to make it clear: the following suggestion/request is based on the current implementation of things and assuming they stay that way. If there are going to be changes in the design of the queues that request might become obsolete.


In the Late Answers queue:

There is now both an action for edit (red square), and also the edit link under the answer (blue square):

enter image description here

Please remove the one under the answer (blue square in the image) to avoid confusion (and be consistent with the new First Q/A queues). I accidentally pressed that in a review and when I finished editing I was thrown back to the original page and out of the queue. Of course I could go back and mark as Looks Ok but it is quite annoying and I'm pretty sure it is bound to happen to others.

7
  • 9
    Please no.. users need to be able to perform multiple actions, as in both flag and edit. The old "I'm done" worked very well for reviews where a user can (and should) perform multiple actions on a review. Aug 30 at 9:30
  • @Unconsidered I'm not sure I understand if you support this or not (maybe you didn't understand my intention and I need to clarify). Users can still flag and edit. By flagging and then choosing the edit action. What I am asking is to remove the edit link under the answer to avoid confusion. But as a side note, I don't understand why would you flag and edit. Makes more sense to flag and recommend deletion...
    – Tomerikoo
    Aug 30 at 10:19
  • 2
    But then the user needs to do the things in a very specific order, which I'm not a fan of. There will always be a situation that will require both actions. Maybe even a flag, an edit and a recommend deletion. Say someone posted personal information in a "Not an Answer" Aug 30 at 10:35
  • 4
    Then surely something need to change anyway. Right now, editing is either an action finishing the review or throwing you out of the queue altogether. Either options doesn't fit what you describe so a change is required either way (in my opinion just bring back the old "I'm Done" and that's it...)
    – Tomerikoo
    Aug 30 at 10:55
  • @Unconsidered Anyway, again, as a side note, there is really no reason to flag/recommend deletion and edit. If something is spam/rude/NAA/requires mods there is really no reason to edit as it will probably be gone anyway
    – Tomerikoo
    Aug 30 at 11:15
  • 1
    That edit link has always been there... I don't think it is a good idea to remove it. It is consistent with the general SE UI (i.e. "Share Edit Follow Flag"), and would cause confusion if removed. It is the edit link's behaviour that has changed in the new review queues - it used to throw you back to the review queue and not to the question/post page. Sep 1 at 8:44
  • 1
    @Greenonline The difference is that an edit action was added to the review which is the one that should be used. If anything, removing the edit link is consistent with the other reviews. Anyway, this is most probably not even relevant because it seems there are bigger changes happening and probably the I'm Done button will be back in some form
    – Tomerikoo
    Sep 1 at 8:52
1

Audit context expectations

I'm not sure where this fits, so I'll just give my feedback here for historical purposes and we'll see where it goes. I just reviewed a first answer and clicked 'Edit' to fix up its issues:

enter image description here

Now what I expect is that when that post is shown here, that all of the glaring grammar issues are sorted out. Afterall I did 'pass' my audit because I wanted to edit the thing, right? I don't see any previous editing effort here in the Congrats banner. So just for certain, I go to the answer itself. It's exactly the same. I fix it up. I've passed three audits now following this scenario.

However this seems strange to me. I agree that an edit should count as a pass. You only make that action if you are paying attention to what you are doing, and that's a proactive curative thing to do. PASS. But, as choosing 'Looks Ok' correlates with a relatively large number of upvotes, it feels like 'Edit' should correlate with a good solid previous edit that's cleaned the post up. I have no idea how to tie together this context though. In fact, it's impossible I think.

  1. You can't predict what a future edit will really do.

  2. A grammatical analysis of a post is process heavy, and on motley sites like these with very specialized syntax and formatting for each, such an analysis is almost certain to flag up perfectly appropriate grammar as incorrect.

We may just have to all agree that this is the best we can do. Sure makes for an odd workflow though.

6
  • "choosing 'Looks Ok' correlates with a relatively large number of upvotes" Huh? "Looks OK" just means it is OK. It doesn't necessitate that the answer have a high score (or any score). It's just that audits are chosen by the system automatically based on very limited (read: dumb) criteria: post score. Your suggestion seems to indicate we should find posts that have been edited for grammar, and then upvoted heavily after the edit, and then have the original version shown as the audit, and then it's only passed if someone clicks "Edit"... this seems way too contrived, and v difficult to do.
    – TylerH
    Sep 10 at 14:41
  • A person should not necessarily consider an answer "bad", especially in a queue, just because it has grammatical problems. While I agree that grammar and spelling are important, as long as the content is understandable enough to get the point/content across to readers, it doesn't matter if there are some typos, missing articles, etc. in terms of whether it is an "OK" answer.
    – TylerH
    Sep 10 at 14:42
  • @TylerH, I am familiar with the way the audits are chosen. I'm not really making any suggestion (though yours is as good as anything they've got now I suppose). I don't think there is really any way to 'fix' this, if that is even the correct word. I'm just pointing out that it's an odd correlation. Even with your idea, what if the edit only dealt with clarity, but not atrocious grammar, or vice versa?
    – ouflak
    Sep 10 at 17:19
  • @TylerH, I do agree that grammar and spelling do not a bad question/answer make. My normal workflow is: Edit (if needed) -> Review -> Next Task. I've come across many many good posts that only had grammar issues, and responded to them appropriately (editing, upvoting, passing the review). It just seems an odd workflow for an audit. And I'm not even sure I have a right to complain. One of my highest voted meta posts on the network is about how comments shouldn't fail an audit (and others argued should indeed pass it). So I may have helped influence this quirkiness myself indirectly.
    – ouflak
    Sep 10 at 17:23
  • the problem is that English (any natural language, really) is an art, not a science. It is incredibly hard to parse prose about some specific subject matter and determine, programmatically, if it makes sense or not... and in this case, it would need to just "make enough sense", not "make perfect sense", so raise the barrier some more). SO would need to implement something at least on par with the Microsoft Word Spelling and Grammar check system, which itself isn't even that good anymore once you get into technical subject matter like science or medicine (or programming).
    – TylerH
    Sep 10 at 18:43
  • 1
    I totally get you, unfortunately I think you're right in that what we have now is probably the best we are gonna get. Maybe it telling you "hey, this is an audit" when you try to Edit it, rather than telling you that you passed the audit (like it does when you try to comment).
    – TylerH
    Sep 10 at 18:44
1

The "Other Action" option is great! I'm glad you added it. However, I disagree with voting causing this to be selected for two reasons:

1. When a post is upvoted, the reviewer should choose "Looks OK", not "Other Action"

If I choose looks OK and then upvote, the other action option is automatically selected, so I have to take another step and click looks OK for the second time. This seems to either discourage upvoting good posts or choosing looks OK on good posts.

2. Voting is seperate from reviewing

A post can fundamentally be OK, but you can disagree with it (as is the case with most MSE posts, for example). Voting is a personal opinion, not an alternative to reviewing. By having voting select "Other action", voting becomes a review action.

1

This is now its own queston. Please direct any comments etc.... there.

If you reach your vote limit, you also reach your review limit! Don't know how active this thread is, and this is probably minor anyway.

Edit: This is a bit more serious than I thought. I'm now locked out of the Late answers queue! If there is no response here in the next day or so. I'll make a separate post about this.

Note: I can still review the First Questions queue. enter image description here

enter image description here

4
  • 2
    I think this always been the case for the 'Late answers' and the deprecated 'First posts' queues: see 'Why does the review system disable the "First Posts" and "Late Answers" if I reached daily upvote limit?'. Nov 23 at 19:22
  • 1
    @TheAmplitwist, Then why can I still review First Questions? Is that the actual bug, that that's still allowed?
    – ouflak
    Nov 23 at 19:44
  • Oh! Yes, probably the bug here is that one is allowed to review First Questions even after exhausting one’s votes. Nov 23 at 19:53
  • 1
    The OP has said, "We will be monitoring this post until Friday, September 10th. Report any further issues after September 10th as new questions on Meta." So, could you please post this bug report as a new question? Nov 30 at 5:52
0

Thanks for the update! Regarding, the "Leave closed" option in the Reopen Review Queue, I'll repeat the feedback that I provided in a comment to another post:

If the question was put in the Reopen Review Queue because of an edit, the listed options should include a "The edit did not resolve the original close reason" option and it should be checked by default.

You've indeed added that option, which is great! Can we please have it checked by default though? I imagine that will be the option that is chosen in most cases and saving a click goes a long way :)

I know that there are good arguments against this but just to put it into perspective, in the old design of the Reopen Review Queue, one only needed to click one button to say that the question should remain closed:

Currently, it requires 4 clicks just to communicate the fact that nothing substantial has changed about the question:

8
  • 4
    I think making the user pause to consider the reason might be helpful, though. It means the user has to affirmatively confirm they believe this is true (as opposed to being the "misc" reason). This means that if the user can't find an option that seems relevant, they don't have one chosen for them to help them proceed—it tells them they should reconsider recommending that it be left closed. Aug 26 at 14:08
  • Presenting the options alone is a motive for the user to pause and consider the reason. If someone is robo-reviewing, then having the first option unchecked will not stop them.
    – 41686d6564
    Aug 26 at 14:09
  • 2
    My concern here isn't about robo-reviewing. My concern is about a user who thinks the question should be left closed, but on reflection—looking over the reasons because none is automatically selected and they must affirmatively choose one—may find there's no specific reason it should be, change their mind, and act differently on the question. Aug 26 at 14:11
  • 5
    I think having to make the choice manually is preferable. Having it pre-checked would also potentially mislead reviewers, e.g. "well the system already checked this one option for me, so I just accepted that was the right choice, and submitted the review!"
    – TylerH
    Aug 26 at 14:18
  • @TylerH I don't know. On one hand, that's a fair point but on the other hand, I don't like the fact that one needs to click 4 elements just to communicate that nothing substantial has changed about the question ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    – 41686d6564
    Aug 26 at 14:28
  • 1
    @41686d6564 I agree it is a longer process and could lead to fatigue, but the act of reviewing items itself is already a long process that you have to go out of your way to choose to do.
    – TylerH
    Aug 26 at 14:50
  • 7
    I'm inclined to agree with TylerH here - prechecking a "default" when there is actually no default here could cause a bias towards a specific result, which isn't helpful for anyone. I'm going to status-declined this for now, but we'll revisit it in the future if necessary.
    – kristinalustig StaffMod
    Aug 27 at 12:44
  • 2
    Agree with this. So many extra needless clicks. Aug 30 at 23:28
0

enter image description here

I'm still worried about the wording here. Edits should attempt to fix all issues with the post. While yes, the close reason is one, remember that posts can be closed by multiple reasons, just one is shown. Wording here should be less about the specific close reason and more about following the site guidelines like the message for the reviewers say.

6
  • 15
    "Edits should attempt to fix all issues with the post" - No. Some changes to a post must be made by the posts author. I shouldn't have to wait for you to clarify what you are talking about before I can clean up your spelling, grammar, or language. Aug 26 at 14:32
  • 2
    @ThomasMarkov this facility was specifically designed so that editors can do that assertion instead of the system presuming any edit is fixing all issues. That's what this feature is about.
    – Braiam
    Aug 26 at 14:34
  • 5
    I'm inclined to agree with @ThomasMarkov here - one can edit a post to the best of one's ability and it's still useful, even if it doesn't fully resolve the original close reasons.
    – kristinalustig StaffMod
    Aug 26 at 16:14
  • 2
    @kristinalustig that's not what this is about. It's about what's expected of the editor. The close reason is not 1 reason, it can be multiple, but the UI doesn't show all of them. Editors would focus in addressing what the close reason says, instead of fixing issues of the post. We've already discussed this before. There are questions that have multiple issues, but the editor would just focus on one of them. Please, remember what's the objective of this feature: making sure that the quality of the post rises to an acceptable level.
    – Braiam
    Aug 26 at 22:57
  • In other words, Tomas is missing the point. The feedback I gave before noted this: itemizing badness and sidelinging generating good, on topic, specific questions. Review it again.
    – Braiam
    Aug 26 at 23:00
  • 3
    Okay, after reviewing your other thoughts I understand this now. Going to follow up with Lisa (designer) and see what she thinks. Thanks for elaborating.
    – kristinalustig StaffMod
    Aug 27 at 12:46
0

There is a typo in first question (answer) queue actions block:

Other action

It should be "Other actions" or "Another action".

P.S. English isn't my native language.

4
  • 7
    I disagree. I see this as shorthand for "I took some other action". "Another action" would imply to me that choosing that option would open a menu with other actions to choose from, not just allow you to finish the review. "Other actions" forces a plural, which may not be correct. I think the wording is good as it is.
    – Catija StaffMod
    Sep 8 at 13:45
  • 2
    If there is an error at all in this wording then it could be "Other action(s)"
    – Luuklag
    Sep 8 at 13:47
  • 2
    I agree with @Catija, although if I were going to nitpick, the list lacks parallelism which makes "Other action" seem like it doesn't fit. "No action needed / Edit / Add (or Share) feedback / Something else" would be how I would put it.
    – ColleenV
    Sep 8 at 13:51
  • I typically edit (when necessary) before I even begin the actual review. So 'actions' could be correct. But in its singular form, it could be encompassing.
    – ouflak
    Sep 8 at 16:21
1 2 3
4

You must log in to answer this question.

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