Timeline for Reminding people to pay attention and use skip when reviewing
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 23, 2019 at 17:24 | history | edited | user3956566 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 39 characters in body
|
| Sep 13, 2017 at 16:58 | comment | added | user3956566 | @PixelElephant you're a genius!! He's actually tweeted the OP's work profile!! | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 16:46 | comment | added | Pixel Elephant | @YvetteColomb Github user with same username as asker github.com/poiuytrez, works at Databerries. Editor has a linked Twitter profile twitter.com/wk_pat which retweets lots of tweets from Teemo. Databerries Twitter twitter.com/databerries has a single tweet which explains that they are now Teemo. Databerries == Teemo, asker is CTO, editor presumably works there. | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 16:39 | comment | added | user3956566 | @PixelElephant I can't see any relationship between the asker and the editor. What are you seeing with your detective snooping that I'm not? | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 16:35 | comment | added | user3956566 | @PixelElephant I did wonder about the "random user" editing it - which is not really a good thing anyway - with all the complications of potential account activity conflicts. Yeh, I had asked a couple of times for the code. The OP really should've added it themself. | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 16:32 | comment | added | Pixel Elephant | @YvetteColomb Interestingly, the reviewers accidentally got it right in this case. You can see that the asker added back in the edit after your rollback, and a quick snoop through the profiles of the asker and editor indicates that they are co-workers. Of course, I doubt that the reviewers actually thought this through... | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 15:54 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Active reading.
|
| Sep 13, 2017 at 14:59 | comment | added | Walfrat | Note that you can easily spots if the current review you're doing is an audit test. I like @NisargShah comments, with some good numbers maybe we could detect automatically potentially bad reviewers. | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 11:56 | comment | added | user3956566 | @Braiam totally agree - but it won't happen | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 11:54 | comment | added | Braiam | @NathanOliver IMO we need better reviewers. Lock people with filters where they can only review edits on the tags they have some score on. They will be more careful since it's something they care about (the language they know of). | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 10:00 | comment | added | Mischa | @Lundin even that get's rejected sometimes... I once asked a OP to give some code, which he did happily in the comments. I took the code, prettified it and added it to the question with a clear "Added code from comments" Edit reason... It took not even 30 minutes to gather 3 REJECTs... Which by the way made me dropping the question (but that's unrelated to this topic) | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 9:13 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Mar 23, 2019 at 17:23 | |||||
| Sep 13, 2017 at 8:46 | answer | added | Cody GrayMod | timeline score: 39 | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 8:45 | comment | added | gnat | @Lundin obviously, you've got to be kidding. On a surface it looks like a typical case when editor simply quotes the code snippet provided by inexperienced asker at some external link instead of inlining it into question, totally legitimate. I almost always skip such reviews because it is too cumbersome to check if this is indeed so (it gets especially annoying when asker provides link to code somewhere in the comments, sometimes even in comments to some answer) | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 8:31 | comment | added | Lundin | @gnat There is usually a lot of black & white cases where the option to reject is obvious, yet some reviewers approve the edit. That has nothing to do with inexperience. The example posted by the OP is a fairly good example of something that should obviously be rejected. Appending a wall of code appended to a post should not be approved in most cases, there's only a few rare exceptions like "included code from comments". | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 8:17 | comment | added | gnat | @Lundin my theory is, this happens just as often to new inexperienced reviewers who bump into slippery review items and do mistakes believing that they need to make some decision and not just skip. They differ from robo reviewers in that when they end failing audits (or even pass but find out it's too difficult to decide right) they simply drop off reviewing. Request for stats that could confirm or disprove this theory hangs ignored for about 3 months now so we probably will never know | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 8:15 | comment | added | Nisarg Shah | One of the two reviewers in this case has approved 177 edit suggestions, rejected 6 edit suggestions and improved 7 edit suggestions. It is pretty hard to digest that 93% of the edit requests they got were perfect. Plus, accoring to this query, their approval decisions were reversed by other reviewers 27 times (that is 14%). The other reviewer's edits have a reversal rate of 23%! | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 8:04 | comment | added | Nisarg Shah | @Lundin Exactly, and educating them about "Skip" isn't really going to work. Perhaps, as Nathan Oliver suggests, better audits are the key to avoiding such cases. | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 8:01 | comment | added | Lundin | Is not using "skip" really the root cause of these bad reviews, though? Isn't it rather robo-reviewers hunting rep and badges? | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 7:57 | comment | added | gnat | prediction: this is not going to happen. SE team goes to great lengths masturbating over review UI, with a-b-testing and whatnot but apparently has no time to address a simple stats request related to Skip. Looks like they somehow want most reviewers to stay oblivious of Skip | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 7:54 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 132 characters in body
|
| Sep 13, 2017 at 7:45 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/356451/reminding-people-to-pay-attention-and-use-skip-when-reviewing#comment513529_356451
|
| Sep 13, 2017 at 6:56 | comment | added | S.L. Barth is on codidact.com | @NathanOliver I once suggested to generate different audits for the edit review queue. | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 2:52 | comment | added | Makoto | I apologize if you thought my tone was condescending. It certainly wasn't intended to be. | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 2:25 | comment | added | user3956566 | @Makoto I didn't miss your point at all -That's your opinion - you're entitled to that, but you did miss my point and I'm not worried about it. I'm replying with humour to make light of what I thought was not a nice comment. There's other posts that do the exact same thing I have done - linked a specific approved suggested edit - these questions have been well received and upvoted and you're not making negative comments under those - implying I want a witch hunt under those. So please don't condescend to me. | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 2:13 | comment | added | Makoto | I'm really worried that you missed my point. Mere mortals don't need to do anything in these scenarios. You need to get a moderator involved instead. All we're going to do is make a whole mess of the situation, irrespective of our intentions. | |
| Sep 13, 2017 at 2:12 | comment | added | user3956566 | @Makoto it's more of a solo drive by shooting, than a gather your pitchforks. | |
| Sep 12, 2017 at 23:04 | comment | added | Tetsuya Yamamoto |
Well, sometimes I feel ninja'd when dealing with suggested edit review. Some "poor" edits I think goes to "no improvement whatsoever" rejection option, but other reviewer approved it - even the OP does (e.g. approved System.lang.out.println instead of proper naming java.lang.System.out.println).
|
|
| Sep 12, 2017 at 19:23 | comment | added | user1228 | Speaking of pitchforks, where did I leave mine? | |
| Sep 12, 2017 at 19:11 | comment | added | Makoto | This sounds like the perfect use case for a moderator flag and not an opportunity for us on Meta to grab our pitchforks. | |
| Sep 12, 2017 at 18:14 | comment | added | user3956566 | @NathanOliver of course!! I actually agree - I'm meaning how sad is it that some people fail those more obvious audits | |
| Sep 12, 2017 at 18:13 | comment | added | NathanOliver | True but I bet we would catch a lot more if we gave them something a little less obvious. | |
| Sep 12, 2017 at 18:12 | comment | added | user3956566 | @NathanOliver even people have failed the ones that have spam in them | |
| Sep 12, 2017 at 18:11 | comment | added | NathanOliver | IMHO we need better audits. The current ones are laughably easy to tell they are wrong. Not sure how the system would work but I think we need to start using edits that were rejected as audits. | |
| Sep 12, 2017 at 18:04 | history | asked | user3956566 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |