Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
To avoid what in the comments? It's a comment for your edit, which wouldn't have happened if you didn't do it, so that doesn't quite make sense. Also, don't speak for others as to what they're interested in as you can't possibly know that. Else it could be called back as "projecting", but that's also ofc just a theory. If you want to know what I'm interested in, it's stopping contributing here after a half-year experiment, mostly for the same reason as why I haven't used the site a lot before, but that's off-topic here and not related to closed votes queue.
Or I see the algorithm is actually a bit different with votes getting removed one by one: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120896/… but the effect is more or less the same - 1-2 months and 3-4 close votes are pointless and gone.
The questions from years ago are freshly reported I'm pretty sure, as like I mentioned in my 2nd bullet point, people report those occassionally and they're missed by people ignoring the queue feature and just close voting from the question lists. Normally close votes seem to expire after around a month
@Tetsujinn why did you edit out one of the facts from my post? I have no idea how you can call that note "contentious" while your recent questions, coincidentally criticizing reviewers, talks about e.g. "Gold Stupidity Badge", which is 100% a rule break and this observation wasn't insultive nor personal Discouraging people from reviews while not reviewing regularly is also an issue, as this site is entirely based on voluntary actions.
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.
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.
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
... 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.
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"...
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.
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.
What about it indeed...? That articles shows so many differences as well. So does e.g. this question meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92107/… You can say it was a fallac, but it was just a supporting information for other arguments you ignored. E.g. the "continuous discussion" part or whatever you want to name that.
It's not correct at all. I'm saying that as a dev who worked on a forum script for years. This isn't a forum, Twitter isn't a forum, YouTube comments aren't a forum, etc. Forums are made for continuous discussions in an organized way and here a lot of aspects of that don't fit. E.g. comments that push some questions forward are often removed if they're not needed anymore. Because the Q&A format is supposed to be concise and focused on an accurate question and accurate answers for it. It's something between a wiki and a forum, but it can't be called any of these.
