Skip to main content
Super User

Timeline for How do we better educate new Reviewers in the Review queues?

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

48 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 3, 2023 at 14:09 history edited Journeyman GeekMod CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 16 characters in body
Jul 14, 2023 at 17:12 comment added Mokubai Mod Users that have been banned by moderators will get a message telling them why they were banned as per meta.stackexchange.com/questions/356377/… so we can ban for spam and various other reasons and they should know why. When they are banned due to poor audits they will still get a message, but it will be limited to "you did some bad reviews, do better." If we know or are told that someone is just robo-reviewing or not reviewing properly then we could do something about it.
Jul 13, 2023 at 9:40 history edited Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
added quotes to image for clarity
Jul 8, 2023 at 12:51 comment added Ramhound @Tetsujin - They have to be willing to participate, I fear many, are unwilling to actively participate in the process. So I personally have written them off, I’ll only focus on those, that participate in that process.
Jul 8, 2023 at 12:49 comment added Tetsujin @Ramhound - sure, but it just seems the wrong way round. Let them be rubbish at it for a while, then ban them for being rubbish at it, so then they have to ask why they were banned. Hence my original point - how do we educate first, rather than ban afterwards?
Jul 8, 2023 at 12:46 comment added Ramhound Review banning typically is about making it clear your review banned so you ask the reason your review banned. Voted to delete, so it’s properly identified as spam, but wasn’t technically automatically deleted after reaching enough spam flags.
Jul 8, 2023 at 12:34 comment added Tetsujin My main concern is that these users are responding wrongly to the most blatantly obvious spam. It's apparent they have no idea just what action they should take, but rather than skip, or ask someone, they're still going through making inappropriate choices, so rapidly that I actually find it hard to find any good examples if I look at the queues myself, other than close & re-open - they're all already done.
Jul 8, 2023 at 12:34 comment added Tetsujin @Ramhound - I hope you're right, but fear that simply review-banning won't educate, merely shift the problem elsewhere;) I agree on not editing spam as it confuses the Smoke Detector - except one I edited, which had been flagged but declined. The OP then added the full spam I'd been anticipating in the first place:\ superuser.com/q/1793631/347380 if you want to drop another delete flag on it, it only has 2 so far.
Jul 8, 2023 at 12:24 comment added Ramhound @Tetsujin - I suspect many of the reviewers who have been choosing the incorrect review option while trying to empty the queue will be review suspended once moderators return to their duties. This certainly is something I have seen countless times at Stack Overflow, and I know many of the Super User moderators are aware that it also happens. Personally, I think editing spam is worse than choosing the wrong review option when dealing with spam. One is an intentional choice. The other automatically generates a comment when you select an option that technically does apply to the review action
Jul 8, 2023 at 11:25 history edited Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
added 138 characters in body
Jul 8, 2023 at 11:20 history edited Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
added 138 characters in body
Jul 6, 2023 at 16:45 history edited Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
added 183 characters in body
Jul 5, 2023 at 12:57 history edited Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
added 217 characters in body
Jul 5, 2023 at 6:44 history edited Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
added 569 characters in body
Jul 4, 2023 at 14:01 history edited Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
edited title
Jul 4, 2023 at 7:53 comment added Tetsujin @Destroy666 - it's just occurred to me, re-reading this thread, that you may think it's the users I'm trying to educated. It isn't. It's the reviewers.
Jul 3, 2023 at 17:53 history edited Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
added 2 characters in body
Jul 3, 2023 at 16:27 history edited Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
added 94 characters in body
Jul 3, 2023 at 15:47 history edited Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
added 139 characters in body
Jul 3, 2023 at 12:05 comment added Tetsujin @Destroy666 - as they were responding until the bot comment went in, I guess we'll never know now. Often with this type of question, once the rubber stamp goes in, they rarely come back. Harder to guess in this case, as the user isn't brand-new, but does have limited interaction. As already pointed out, the first question queue never gets long enough to be any worry. Insisting on banging through it is precisely what I'm hoping to prevent. I wasn't at all annoyed by the user & it's not the OP I'm trying to educate, it's the reviewers. I was annoyed by the completely unnecessary rubber-stamp.
Jul 3, 2023 at 10:43 history edited Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
'didn't know what else to do' :\
Jul 3, 2023 at 10:35 comment added Destroy666 1) I've written about that in the comment above... Skipping clogs the queues and wastes time for other reviews for lots of other people if there's no clear solution provided by the system and the person who "reviews" the question doesn't do it through the queue, breaking the (far from perfect) flow that devs came up with. 2) You can continue to confuse education with politeness if you desire. You were annoyed by how the user skipped 2 of your questions, so your "education" wasn't perhaps too effective. Let's see if now with the "clouding" bot comment they'll answer.
Jul 3, 2023 at 10:31 history edited Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
'didn't know what else to do' :\
Jul 3, 2023 at 10:21 comment added Tetsujin My entire point, which you still don't seem to be grasping, is that 1) you don't have to complete the review if there's no sensible action to take, or if action is already being taken. You can skip. The first question queues are dealt with by the same few people, usually so rapidly I never find anything in the queue. 2) "a kinder sounding info message" no it isn't. It's completely useless & gives the OP no clue whatsoever what exactly they need to do. Even more so because triage/clarification is already underway. All it does is cloud the issue. Hence my request here for education.
Jul 3, 2023 at 10:07 comment added Destroy666 Information isn't everything and often people forget it here, myself included sometimes if I'm tired or not in a good mood.
Jul 3, 2023 at 10:04 comment added Destroy666 Oh, I am fully aware of that. But perhaps you should get it done through queue next time then, if you see it's a newcomer question. Someone has to click something there one day, else the queue will get full with "let's wait till it expires" posts. "Looks ok" - that's a lie. Repeat what you wrote, more or less - nope. Upvote your comment? Maybe, but I could e.g. disagree with the tone. This one was ok in comparison to many other ones, but it wasn't perfect either, so I decided to click that option to provide the user also a kinder sounding info message that they need to provide more details.
Jul 3, 2023 at 9:35 comment added Tetsujin @Destroy666 - This is precisely what I'm talking about superuser.com/questions/1793377/… There is already interaction to try clarify, then the dozy, useless boiler-plate appears underneath. This is the mindless reviewing I'm talking about. [& yes, I can see who posted it from review]. Nothing to do with whether a question was closed for a wrong reason. If you want to discuss that, post a new question.
Jun 30, 2023 at 22:17 comment added Destroy666 Ok? Not sure how that's related to anything. And here's another example of a question closed for "not suitable" reason, even though the "not suitable" part looks to be random personal feelings, not the rules superuser.com/review/close/1198446
Jun 30, 2023 at 11:37 comment added Tetsujin @Destroy666 - you don't need to be in the review queues to flag spam. You can do it from the question itself.
Jun 30, 2023 at 11:33 comment added user705502 It would be so great if your template (please take time to take the tour .. etc) was part of boiler plate templates.
Jun 30, 2023 at 0:09 comment added Destroy666 ... votes, 0 comments and nothing that can be considered "opinion-based". Why? Who knows. Certain non-obvious flags/close votes should perhaps require at least an initial custom comment as they are, well, also ironically, opinion-based.
Jun 30, 2023 at 0:06 comment added Destroy666 More boilerplates? Definitely. The current ones are so bad, they "lack claritfy or details", very ironically. Also flagging/voting for anything except duplicates doesn't add any comments, which sucks. I see a bunch of questions getting close votes with 0 explantation or attempts to lead the user to correct the question. I can understand when the question is very unlikely to get any better, but it also often happens with well-formed and well-formatted ones. Some people just click downvote, close and call it a day. And then there are questions in queue which have let's say 4 "opinion-based"...
Jun 29, 2023 at 23:56 comment added Destroy666 More audits? If only they did anything and followed the website's rules. I failed multiple ones that expected me to click "Looks ok", even though they were clearly off-topic, e.g. there was one highly upvoted question that asked about Google Docs. Suggested edits ones are the peak of uselessness. Whoever coded them could have checked some cat photos instead, it'd be more productive. If you don't know what I'm talking about, they just add some blabbering that only a 7 year old or a person with 2‰ alcohol in blood would not instantly notice.
Jun 29, 2023 at 23:53 comment added Destroy666 These queues are honestly implemented terribly, so is the flagging system. To prevent spamming (nothing to do with reputation farming BTW). they should limit them per e.g. hour, not per day. E.g. 3 per hour would result in less rushing and more quality reviews from higher veriety of people. There could also be a queue separate to First questions like Confirm spam with 2 buttons - Spam and Not spam so that people click the right button to get rid of spam quicker. Questions/answers would appear there once one person reports them as spam.
Jun 28, 2023 at 7:36 history became hot meta post
Jun 27, 2023 at 17:38 comment added Tetsujin @Ramhound - Yeah, these all come from the 'first questions' queue - the easiest one to get access to, for the rep farmers. If I find one in another queue I open the full QA to have a better look & take more appropriate action… but these queue bashers are just not bothering, which doesn't help them, us, the newbie or the site...
Jun 27, 2023 at 17:33 comment added Ramhound @Tetsujin - There isn't option to flag as spam in every review queue, like reviewing answers, and I have had to flag over 3 dozen spam answers in the last 3 days. Low quality posts also does not have the option to flag as spam. So which queue was the contribution about the media player in, problem first questions, if I were to guess.
Jun 27, 2023 at 17:22 comment added Tetsujin @Ramhound - I managed to get a real one to demonstrate. Take any other action, like flag as spam, you get an additional option, Other Action, which then shows in the Review History as just 'Reviewed'
Jun 27, 2023 at 17:14 comment added Tetsujin @Ramhound - there is the option to flag as spam, or many other 'real' actions from Review. Just dumping the same boiler-plate on everything is really not reviewing, it's banging through the list as fast as possible. Look at today's history, it's right there. & I realised earlier, this is an 18k user… really should know better by now. There are a couple of other frequent fliers, but this is the worst by far.
Jun 27, 2023 at 17:12 comment added Ramhound @Tetsujin - Skipping a review on a legitmant contriutions, be it high quality or low quality is one thing, but not having an option to properly handle spam in every review queue, is something else entirely
Jun 27, 2023 at 17:03 comment added Tetsujin @Ramhound - They can flag from Review - i.sstatic.net/oCcBn.png [I thought I'd just managed to catch one to show the whole action, but it turned out to be an audit. …I passed ;) If flagged it should just show as 'Reviewed' in History. As I noted earlier, there's always 'no comment' or Skip, if they're not sure.
Jun 27, 2023 at 16:55 comment added Ramhound @Tetsujin - If you can see the review for the contribution you can determine who submitted the automatic submitted commentary. Of course, there really isn't an appropriate review response, for actual spam in most review queues. I would argue, there isn't appprirate review response most of the time, so the closest response has to be seletected.
Jun 27, 2023 at 16:53 comment added Ramhound @Mokubai - Why isn't that behavior being reported to the SE staff, so appropriate actions, can be handled. Upvoting what is clearly spam is a problem.
Jun 27, 2023 at 12:57 comment added Tetsujin @Mokubai - sure, I can see who does it most frequently & repeatedly. I didn't want to name names in here & not many users can see those lists anyway. Is it 10k or 20k gives access? That particular comment is my least favourite anyway, but when I see it applied to things that really should have had other actions performed, it's even worse. tbh I hadn't noticed spam getting upvotes & of course, we have no way of knowing who that was:\
Jun 27, 2023 at 12:19 comment added Mokubai Mod More annoying to me though is I've noticed that someone is upvoting the spam. I don't know if they're trying to show some solidarity or if they're just trolling to give spammers rep, but I find that more infuriating than the comments to be honest.
Jun 27, 2023 at 11:55 comment added Mokubai Mod There are quite a lot of somewhat worrying "share feedbacks" on deleted (spam) questions there. In at least some cases there is no accompanying spam flag from those users which I find somewhat vexing.
Jun 27, 2023 at 11:51 comment added Mokubai Mod We can suspend them from reviews, giving them a message as to which reviews were incorrect. That should trigger some introspection on what brought them to this point. At least, moderators could do that if, you know.... Alternatively you can check the reviews history and search for that question to see who the most likely culprit was. That at least give you a name to talk to about their behaviour.
Jun 27, 2023 at 11:05 history asked Tetsujin CC BY-SA 4.0
toggle format