Return to Answer

Preface:

Since this a discussion, I would like to share my thoughts over reviewing in general. I am not new to this community nor am I old; I am learning new things every single day. I spend several hours on SO mainly to answer questions and follow-up on my answers, I also check review queue when things get calm.

There is no doubt that "Stack Overflow is moderated by you" reflects professionalism of SE and its' staff behind the scenes; additionally, it is a brilliant idea and has definitely contributed to making SE a nucleus for persons seeking out help and advice as well as keeping comfortable and organized place to share expertise. Moreover, it has implanted "loyalty" in its' frequent users.

However, at the same time, it made some users race to collect reputation to serve other purposes rather than effectively utilizing their privilege in helping the community remain clean.

I always wanted to say what I am going to say not, although, I assume it wouldn't be accept by the majority and they would think that I would like to change the rules. I better let it out instead of keeping inside.

It is relatively easy to gain 2,000 rep, which entitles one to review edit queue. In fast-paced and high traffic tags, it is possible to reach 2,000 in a short period, 7 to 10 days maybe? But, does that mean or indicate that such a user has gained enough experience to distinguish between good or bad edit? This also applies on flags handling and other types of reviews.

In light of the above, I would like to brainstorm the following points:

• Create a "Training Center" where users can practice reviewing and flagging, rather than practicing on real posts.
• To consider other criteria / factors in addition to reputation for entitling users to review. E.g. number of visited day or consecutive.
• In case of "edits" final approval should be taken by post owner and/or high rep user (10,000+)?
• Make real use of badges. For example, users with golden badge of a specific tag, has extra privileges over other users in that "tag"?

Whether you see those points feasible, do-able and may reduce such accidents, I would love to hear your comments.

Preface:

Since this a discussion, I would like to share my thoughts over reviewing in general. I am not new to this community nor am I old; I am learning new things every single day. I spend several hours on SO mainly to answer questions and follow-up on my answers, I also check review queue when things get calm.

There is no doubt that "Stack Overflow is moderated by you" reflects professionalism of SE and its' staff behind the scenes; additionally, it is a brilliant idea and has definitely contributed to making SE a nucleus for persons seeking out help and advice as well as keeping comfortable and organized place to share expertise. Moreover, it has implanted "loyalty" in its' frequent users.

However, at the same time, it made some users race to collect reputation to serve other purposes rather than effectively utilizing their privilege in helping the community remain clean.

I always wanted to say what I am going to say not, although, I assume it wouldn't be accept by the majority and they would think that I would like to change the rules. I better let it out instead of keeping inside.

It is relatively easy to gain 2,000 rep, which entitles one to review edit queue. In fast-paced and high traffic tags, it is possible to reach 2,000 in a short period, 7 to 10 days maybe? But, does that mean or indicate that such a user has gained enough experience to distinguish between good or bad edit? This also applies on flags handling and other types of reviews.

In light of the above, I would like to brainstorm the following points:

• Create a "Training Center" where users can practice reviewing and flagging, rather than practicing on real posts.
• To consider other criteria / factors in addition to reputation for entitling users to review. E.g. number of visited day or consecutive.
• In case of "edits" final approval should be taken by post owner and/or high rep user (10,000+)?
• Make real use of badges. For example, users with golden badge of a specific tag, has extra privileges over other users in that "tag"?

Whether you see those points feasible, do-able and may reduce such accidents, I would love to hear your comments.

Preface:

 

Since this a discussion, I would like to share my thoughts over reviewing in general. I am not new to this community nor am I old; I am learning new things every single day. I spend several hours on SO mainly to answer questions and follow-up on my answers, I also check review queue when things get calm.

There is no doubt that "Stack Overflow is moderated by you" reflects professionalism of SE and its' staff behind the scenes; additionally, it is a brilliant idea and has definitely contributed to making SE a nucleus for persons seeking out help and advice as well as keeping comfortable and organized place to share expertise. Moreover, it has implanted "loyalty" in its' frequent users.

However, at the same time, it made some users race to collect reputation to serve other purposes rather than effectively utilizing their privilege in helping the community remain clean.

I always wanted to say what I am going to say not, although, I assume it wouldn't be accept by the majority and they would think that I would like to change the rules. I better let it out instead of keeping inside.

It is relatively easy to gain 2,000 rep, which entitles one to review edit queue. In fast-paced and high traffic tags, it is possible to reach 2,000 in a short period, 7 to 10 days maybe? But, does that mean or indicate that such a user has gained enough experience to distinguish between good or bad edit? This also applies on flags handling and other types of reviews.

In light of the above, I would like to brainstorm the following points:

• Create a "Training Center" where users can practice reviewing and flagging, rather than practicing on real posts.
• To consider other criteria / factors in addition to reputation for entitling users to review. E.g. number of visited day or consecutive.
• In case of "edits" final approval should be taken by post owner and/or high rep user (10,000+)?
• Make real use of badges. For example, users with golden badge of a specific tag, has extra privileges over other users in that "tag"?

Whether you see those points feasible, do-able and may reduce such accidents, I would love to hear your comments.

Preface:

Since this a discussion, I would like to share my thoughts over reviewing in general. I am not new to this community nor am I old; I am learning new things every single day. I spend several hours on SO mainly to answer questions and follow-up on my answers, I also check review queue when things get calm.

There is no doubt that "Stack Overflow is moderated by you" reflects professionalism of SE and its' staff behind the scenes; additionally, it is a brilliant idea and has definitely contributed to making SE a nucleus for persons seeking out help and advice as well as keeping comfortable and organized place to share expertise. Moreover, it has implanted "loyalty" in its' frequent users.

However, at the same time, it made some users race to collect reputation to serve other purposes rather than effectively utilizing their privilege in helping the community remain clean.

I always wanted to say what I am going to say not, although, I assume it wouldn't be accept by the majority and they would think that I would like to change the rules. I better let it out instead of keeping inside.

It is relatively easy to gain 2,000 rep, which entitles one to review edit queue. In fast-paced and high traffic tags, it is possible to reach 2,000 in a short period, 7 to 10 days maybe? But, does that mean or indicate that such a user has gained enough experience to distinguish between good or bad edit? This also applies on flags handling and other types of reviews.

In light of the above, I would like to brainstorm the following points:

• Create a "Training Center" where users can practice reviewing and flagging, rather than practicing on real posts.
• To consider other criteria / factors in addition to reputation for entitling users to review. E.g. number of visited day or consecutive.
• In case of "edits" final approval should be taken by post owner and/or high rep user (10,000+)?
• Make real use of badges. For example, users with golden badge of a specific tag, has extra privileges over other users in that "tag"?

Whether you see those points feasible, do-able and may reduce such accidents, I would love to hear your comments.

Preface:

Since this a discussion, I would like to share my thoughts over reviewing in general. I am not new to this community nor am I old; I am learning new things every single day. I spend several hours on SO mainly to answer questions and follow-up on my answers, I also check review queue when things get calm.

There is no doubt that "Stack Overflow is moderated by you" reflects professionalism of SE and its' staff behind the scenes; additionally, it is a brilliant idea and has definitely contributed to making SE a nucleus for persons seeking out help and advice as well as keeping comfortable and organized place to share expertise. Moreover, it has implanted "loyalty" in its' frequent users.

However, at the same time, it made some users race to collect reputation to serve other purposes rather than effectively utilizing their privilege in helping the community remain clean.

I always wanted to say what I am going to say not, although, I assume it wouldn't be accept by the majority and they would think that I would like to change the rules. I better let it out instead of keeping inside.

It is relatively easy to gain 2,000 rep, which entitles one to review edit queue. In fast-paced and high traffic tags, it is possible to reach 2,000 in a short period, 7 to 10 days maybe? But, does that mean or indicate that such a user has gained enough experience to distinguish between good or bad edit? This also applies on flags handling and other types of reviews.

In light of the above, I would like to brainstorm the following points:

• Create a "Training Center" where users can practice reviewing and flagging, rather than practicing on real posts.
• To consider other criteria / factors in addition to reputation for entitling users to review. E.g. number of visited day or consecutive.
• In case of "edits" final approval should be taken by post owner and/or high rep user (10,000+)?
• Make real use of badges. For example, users with golden badge of a specific tag, has extra privileges over other users in that "tag"?

Whether you see those points feasible, do-able and may reduce such accidents, I would love to hear your comments.

Preface:

Since this a discussion, I would like to share my thoughts over reviewing in general. I am not new to this community nor am I old; I am learning new things every single day. I spend several hours on SO mainly to answer questions and follow-up on my answers, I also check review queue when things get calm.

There is no doubt that "Stack Overflow is moderated by you" reflects professionalism of SE and its' staff behind the scenes; additionally, it is a brilliant idea and has definitely contributed to making SE a nucleus for persons seeking out help and advice as well as keeping comfortable and organized place to share expertise. Moreover, it has implanted "loyalty" in its' frequent users.

However, at the same time, it made some users race to collect reputation to serve other purposes rather than effectively utilizing their privilege in helping the community remain clean.

I always wanted to say what I am going to say not, although, I assume it wouldn't be accept by the majority and they would think that I would like to change the rules. I better let it out instead of keeping inside.

It is relatively easy to gain 2,000 rep, which entitles one to review edit queue. In fast-paced and high traffic tags, it is possible to reach 2,000 in a short period, 7 to 10 days maybe? But, does that mean or indicate that such a user has gained enough experience to distinguish between good or bad edit? This also applies on flags handling and other types of reviews.

In light of the above, I would like to brainstorm the following points:

• Create a "Training Center" where users can practice reviewing and flagging, rather than practicing on real posts.
• To consider other criteria / factors in addition to reputation for entitling users to review. E.g. number of visited day or consecutive.
• In case of "edits" final approval should be taken by post owner and/or high rep user (10,000+)?
• Make real use of badges. For example, users with golden badge of a specific tag, has extra privileges over other users in that "tag"?

Whether you see those points feasible, do-able and may reduce such accidents, I would love to hear your comments.