Timeline for Encouraging attentive suggested edit reviewers to skip every uncontroversial review
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2016 at 21:07 | history | edited | Nathan Tuggy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarified title; made link protocol-independent
|
| May 11, 2015 at 15:49 | comment | added | S.L. Barth is on codidact.com | It's been my strategy for a long, long time - with all the robo-approvers around, "Skip" was effectively the same as "Approve". It got better when edit suggestions got locked during a review, but the problem is still there. | |
| May 5, 2015 at 17:17 | history | edited | Nathan Tuggy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Amended title to be a little clearer about what counts
|
| May 1, 2015 at 17:15 | answer | added | Nathan Tuggy | timeline score: 27 | |
| May 1, 2015 at 17:06 | history | edited | Nathan Tuggy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Re-emphasizing one of the key advantages/mechanics
|
| May 1, 2015 at 17:05 | comment | added | Nathan Tuggy | @Jean-FrançoisCorbett: I thought I'd gotten that, but I'll see what I can do to clarify it more. | |
| May 1, 2015 at 17:04 | comment | added | Nathan Tuggy | @dg99: It's that there are too many reviewers approving things that are wrong. However, because there's a substantial cohort of reviewers that will approve nearly anything, the easiest way to get enough rejections on those edits that genuinely need it is to avoid wasting accepts on (perfectly good!) edits that will go through one way or another without your assistance. This could perhaps go into an answer, actually. | |
| May 1, 2015 at 16:56 | comment | added | Jean-François Corbett | You should probably clarify that the motivation for adopting this behaviour is to better allocate a limited resource i.e. the 20 reviews you are allowed per day. Clicking "Approve" spends 1 of those, clicking "Skip" keeps it in your pocket for the next edit which may be more deserving of attentive review. (At least I think that's what you're driving at?) | |
| May 1, 2015 at 16:56 | comment | added | dg99 | What is the core problem with the Edit review queue that you're addressing? Is it that reviewers are too often clicking Approve without even reading the Edits? Or is it that too many trivial Edits are being Approved (and, by extension, that too many trivial Edits are being proposed in the first place)? I try to reject trivial Edits if there are other plainly obvious changes that the proposer should have made and didn't. But otherwise I feel I have no choice but to accept them if they do make the post more readable. | |
| May 1, 2015 at 16:13 | history | edited | Nathan Tuggy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2015 at 16:05 | history | edited | Nathan Tuggy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Tweaked to emphasize the intended audience
|
| May 1, 2015 at 14:43 | comment | added | Nathan Tuggy | @hichris123: Stars is right; if I thought a meta post or two would result in robo-reviewers changing their ways, I'd just say "Hey guys, we should all be looking carefully at edits before approving them!" Problem solved! But here, the key is that there's a super-abundance of floating approve votes around, so even a fairly substantial increase in Skips instead of Approves would not noticeably hamper genuine edits. | |
| May 1, 2015 at 11:37 | comment | added | starsplusplus | @hichris123 Clearly we don't want all reviewers doing this, but I think Nathan is working under the assumption that encouraging more reviewers to follow these guidelines will not result in all the reviewers suddenly changing their review style en masse. | |
| May 1, 2015 at 10:44 | comment | added | hichris123 | Er... I'm quite confused -- why should this be encouraged? Skipping reviews that you're not sure about is perfectly okay, skipping reviews to find the worst is okay too... but that's not to say all reviewers should be encouraged to do the latter. | |
| May 1, 2015 at 7:22 | comment | added | gnat | related: Additional requirement for Steward or Reviewer badge to help new reviewers learn about using “Skip” | |
| May 1, 2015 at 2:59 | history | edited | Nathan Tuggy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 197 characters in body
|
| May 1, 2015 at 2:51 | history | edited | Nathan Tuggy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Who did I even talk to anyway
|
| May 1, 2015 at 2:17 | history | edited | Nathan Tuggy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Formatting and link
|
| May 1, 2015 at 1:54 | history | asked | Nathan Tuggy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |