14

On SO, at least, there are more than 600 questions/answers to review. I figure that no-one is going to plough their way through all 600, so maybe a default 'random' sort order would be a good idea, so that we get more eyes on more posts.

Just a thought.

|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Servy, Tobias Kienzler, Rory, Aziz Shaikh, Lance Roberts Jul 2 '13 at 14:59

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "The problem described here can no longer be reproduced. Changes to the system or to the circumstances affecting the asker have rendered it obsolete. If you encounter a similar problem, please post a new question." – Servy, Tobias Kienzler, Rory, Aziz Shaikh, Lance Roberts
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Huh. I figured it already was random. Never bothered to check. – Pops Feb 17 '11 at 16:48
5

This is now implemented (to be released soon);

  • if there are more than (some number, currently 90) matching posts, you automatically get a random sampling; paging and sorting is disabled
  • otherwise, you get the "current" view, with paging and sorting
|improve this answer
  • 4
    Is there a way to turn this off for filter=all? Over the last month I've spent all my flags slowly working up to page 55. The randomizing of the 300K results has removed all sense of progress. – yhw42 Feb 18 '11 at 14:17
  • @yhw42 hmm - not without a change, unless you filter it by tag first. Let me discuss it internally... – Marc Gravell♦ Feb 18 '11 at 17:05
  • Thanks for looking at it. It's not that important, so if it takes effort, don't worry. I'll still dig through the old cruft. :) – yhw42 Feb 20 '11 at 16:27
  • 2
    I also was progressing through items in order, but that was because they were sorted from "worst" (according to the algorithm) to "best". That meant that I'd find a greater concentration of non-answers at the low end of this sorting, which is where I'd start. The random ordering means that I now see fewer non-answers per page because there is no preference to the ones that perform worse on the review algorithm. – Brad Larson Feb 21 '11 at 21:48
1

I would rather have the possibility to define custom search as in:

 /review/first-answers?search=help or thanks or please
 https://stackoverflow.com/review/first-answers?page=1&pagesize=50&filter=day&search=help or thanks or please

Any first-time answer with one of those terms in it is likely to be suspicious.

|improve this answer
  • L'un n'exclut pas l'autre :) – Benjol Dec 16 '10 at 13:17
  • @VonC the webpage link in your profile is broken :( – badp Dec 16 '10 at 18:09
  • @radp: "fixed" (in a way) – VonC Dec 16 '10 at 19:09
  • @VonC, this now works – Benjol Jan 7 '11 at 10:47
  • @Benjol: excellent. It works for first answers as well: stackoverflow.com/review/… – VonC Jan 7 '11 at 11:33
  • @VonC, it works for any text too... – Benjol Jan 7 '11 at 12:04
  • @Benjol awesome! – VonC Jan 7 '11 at 12:06
1

The "newest" sort order should be nearly as good as a "random" sort. Assuming people don't arrive synchronized at the page, everybody should get different newest posts.

|improve this answer

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