I'm curious about the math used in the review queues. If you review the limit of 20 posts per day in any queue, the week total shows as 160 (which implies 8 days in a week). Does somebody need to "anchor the 1" or something? (For readers unfamiliar with Common Core math, an explanation of this term).

One place you can see this is on the review queues page. If you hover on a reviewer avatar, it shows the count of their reviews for the day, week, month, and total. The Close Votes queue tends to stay pretty large, so it isn't unusual for some reviewers to max out 20 each day. A snapshot from my own summary:

review stats

  • @Sally superuser.com/review and hover over an avatar.
    – DavidPostill Mod
    Commented Feb 17, 2016 at 10:46
  • 13
    +1 for making fun of common core. Some background: I have multiple degrees( 2 B.S. and 1 M.S. ) that require a great deal of math, I was even only 6 credits away from a math minor, and common core confuses even me.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Feb 17, 2016 at 21:07
  • 4
    Thanks for the link to the common core maths, I'd never heard of it. You unlearn something every day!
    – Jonno
    Commented Feb 19, 2016 at 6:57
  • 2
    Reminds me of New Math.
    – Synetech
    Commented Feb 19, 2016 at 16:01
  • @Synetech I thought it was new math. Commented Feb 19, 2016 at 17:21
  • 1
    Oh god.. I nearly vomited while watching that common core video.
    – Insane
    Commented Feb 19, 2016 at 20:58
  • 2
    I'm not sure how this is confusing, at all. This is absolutely no different than carrying numbers, you're just going down instead of up.
    – user72945
    Commented Feb 21, 2016 at 3:19
  • 6
    I've generally found that the only people with a problem with Common Core math, already know math and are mad that its different. Most of the people I've encountered that are actually involved in the teaching of math to children are generally supportive, other than that they must first come to terms with it before they can teach it. Commented Feb 22, 2016 at 17:09
  • No, but their computers run a Pentium P5 800 nm 5V
    – user557555
    Commented Feb 24, 2016 at 19:48
  • 2
    Protip: Common Core is actually standards, all of the insane things you see are people who don't understand either math or the standards trying to teach both. And a massive industry sprung up foisting "curriculum" that's about as useful as most CS "certifications". Commented Feb 25, 2016 at 14:56
  • 1
    Math minor here. Common Core is STILL confusing even with the 6 extra credits. @Ramhound Commented Feb 28, 2016 at 8:31
  • @FrankThomas Although Common Core tries to teach the kind of shortcuts that people who are "good at math" tend to discover intuitively, I think we've all heard the horror-stories that – especially for kids who already knew some math before before seeing CC (say they got tutored privately with an aim to put them ahead) – they may already have a different set of equally-effective shortcuts which they may now get punished for or barred from using. I don't think most instructors want to teach it like a religion, but I believe a fair number are pressured to do so from the top. Commented Feb 28, 2016 at 8:43
  • Geez. This thread has turned into a monster, and the actual question has taken a back seat. Maybe I should have based my lame humor on something else. :-)
    – fixer1234
    Commented Feb 28, 2016 at 8:57
  • 1
    @WayneWerner - Again; Engineer here; There is nothing standard about common math. But perhaps I like to use the "old school" method to divide numbers.. I don't even know WHAT they call that division in Common Core.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Feb 28, 2016 at 9:40
  • @Ramhound the core standards just state that you need to [understand what division is]( corestandards.org/Math/Content/5/NBT/B/6). Can you take a figure (e.g. a square), say that it has 4 units, and dividing it in half gives you two? Congrats, you understand common core math. Would you agree that it's important to grok that's what 4/2=2 actually means? All the insanity you see is usually someone trying to make a buck by making things extra complicated, and it pisses me off. Commented Feb 28, 2016 at 13:46

1 Answer 1


Here's my guess:

A week is 168 hours. However, a week need not coincide with the calendar week that starts and ends at midnight Stack Exchange time. Reviews refill at 00:00 UTC, and in some time zones, this occurs during waking hours. For example, on the East Coast of the United States, it happens soon after the evening TV news.

  1. Review 20 posts on Monday at 23:00 UTC
  2. Review 20 more posts on Tuesday at 01:00 UTC
  3. Review 20 posts on Wednesday at 01:00 UTC
  4. Review 20 posts on Thursday at 01:00 UTC
  5. Review 20 posts on Friday at 01:00 UTC
  6. Review 20 posts on Saturday at 01:00 UTC
  7. Review 20 posts on Sunday at 01:00 UTC
  8. Review 20 posts on Monday at 01:00 UTC
  9. View health

The time between 23:00 UTC on Monday and 01:00 UTC the following Monday is 146 hours, which is shorter than the 168 hours in a week.

To test this guess, view the user's review count once an hour. If it decreases other than at midnight UTC, the query is based on a 168-hour sliding window.

Another possibility is that it works like "Recent Changes" on a smaller MediaWiki site. "Past 7 days" means back to midnight UTC of the current day plus the previous 7 days.

  • I thought it might be something like that, also. But all actions happen in sync at 00:00 UTC. The counter is reset for "today", and the oldest day drops off the week. So if the counters show day/week as 20/160, at 00:00 UTC, it becomes 0/140 (and a maximum of 20 can be added until the next 00:00 UTC).
    – fixer1234
    Commented Feb 20, 2016 at 0:59
  • Your second theory could explain an 8 day week (first time I've seen that logic).
    – fixer1234
    Commented Feb 20, 2016 at 1:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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