This is almost but not quite what I was imagining. Here's a flowchart of what I was picturing:
Every question gets evaluated for two things: Quality Score and User Heuristics. Quality Score is based on content, length, code ratio, etc. User Heuristics are things like "Is this a new user?" "Do they have a track record of posting questionable stuff?". We ...
I'm glad you asked this. And I say this even though I can't answer it, which is unusual for me - I'm a narcissist and it really bugs me when I can't use someone else's question to show off my own smug self.
But I am still a narcissist, so I'm gonna write like a page of explanation for why I can't answer this first and only then speculate on what the answer ...
On the whole, there's something to be done about first posts review. This is something. But not the right thing.
Give me the opportunity to edit before I do anything else. Often newcomers don't know how to tag and format their post, and the post is unreadable as is. I want to be able to edit a post, and then decide whether to upvote it or to send it into ...
Please, no automatic votes on my behalf.
And just because a question is off-topic doesn't mean it also deserves a down-vote; it is not unheard of that a well-asked question turns out to be a duplicate, or is basically a request to recommend a library, or turns out to be too broad, but that doesn't mean didn't put the right amount of work in the question ...
The short answer here is that when a question is triaged as anything other than Unsalvageable, any pending Spam, Offensive, Very Low Quality or Close flags will be marked Disputed. This is done to prevent the queue from potentially sending questions in three different directions at once (mod flag queue, close review queue, and whatever the intended ...
Currently, no action is taken when a question does not "Look OK". This feature is currently in testing.
Quoting from Shog9♦'s post:
However, first we need to make sure that works! In particular,
before we start filtering questions from the home page or
building a queue for helpful editors, we need to make sure the two
pieces we've built already ...
Use of the word triage reflects an overwhelming sense that there are too many poor quality posts coming through and there are not enough qualified folks to doctor them all. What if we were able to back up from the crisis and consider ways to avoid the problem instead?
A search on "low quality posts" generates a plethora of discussions on how to handle and ...
You have some dequeue conditions that shouldn't happen.
As a foreword: I'm one of those welcoming veterans who'll be giving the new users guidance. I'm a regular user of RPG.SE, which has a lot of users who provide new-user guidance of various forms.
As I currently understand it, the Triage and Welcome interface are both in one queue for new posts (or one ...
First, the entire point of the review queue is that there is no good measure of good and bad. Hence, we need humans, multiple of them, to review a case. That would make rewarding 'good' reviews almost impossible. Note that the end result of a review is not always the end result it should be, thanks to robo-reviewers.
Awarding reputation for reviewing is a ...
Marking a question as VLQ is there to push it into the Triage queue (now). It's there to say that some sort of action is needed in that queue.
It doesn't make any sense to use that flag from the Triage queue. You're flagging an item in that queue as needing to to into the queue you're flagging it from.
It shouldn't even be an available option from the "...
Well, for Photo-SE at least, I don't think this will help much. We basically already treat the Low Quality Posts queue as Help and Improvement, and don't have the volume where a more complicated workflow seems likely to be better. I expect that this is also the case for other lower-traffic but active sites.
Whether the post has been edited is irrelevant. If the post looks okay now, mark it as okay. If the post needs editing in its current state, indicate that it needs editing. If the post is unsalvageable, flag it as appropriate.
The flag would have been disputed by the triage review process. If the review completed as "Looks OK" or "Should Be Improved", any flags on it will be disputed. The OP then decided to delete the question after that happened on his own volition.
If the OP deleted the question before any reviews had completed, the flag would have been marked as "helpful".
There is no such feature in triage review queue to downvote the questions.
The scenario is as following:
If 2 user has vote a question as Looks Good then it will ask to upvote to next user.
If more than 2 users vote as Unsalvageable then it will reach to consider it again and to improve.
If more than 2 users flag as close then it will consider to close the ...
The question isn't asked 29 minutes ago, it's in fact a much older question used as a review audit. Those will appear as new questions. The comments actually give away that it's a review audit; I've posted a feature request for the comments to be re-dated as well.
You have a good pair of eyes. The 'bug' here isn't a bug. It is a review audit, and you passed:
Review audit passed 35 secs ago:
I guess the system updates some information on the post in order to hide it is a review audit. In this case, it worked as designed: you paid attention, you pass.
See the original question where the dates are more realistic.