Skip to main content
Mathematics

Return to Question

edited body
Source Link
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
  • 55.1k
  • 9
  • 165
  • 297
  • What is experience with these tools on Stack Overflow? Did they help to improve situation? (If, for example, half of the SO users think that they have actually made things worse, we should learn from mistakes of others and do not repeat them here.) What is the reception of these tools from the viewpoint of users who help moderate site by actively taking part in the review queues? How does it look like from the viewpoint of users whose posts end up in H&I/triage, compared to the workflow before implementing them (when such questions would be likely put on hold and then handled in reopen review queue if the OP improved them)?
  • Is it possible to assess whether we have enough stuff ofon this site for training the algorithms which decide which questions enter triage?
  • Clearly, if it is implemented, we as the users will have to learn to work with the new tools. Other than that, does it change how much work has to be done by the community? For example, is it likely that if the newly review queues are created, the number of review needed in close votes review queue will decrease and the total number of reviews will be approximately the same?
  • Can we somehow estimate whether we have enough reviewers to make these new systems effective? For example, we can see some close votes review stats and everybody active in reviewing noticed that close votes review haven't been empty for quite a long time. If we do not have enough reviewers to clear up the close votes review queue, it is an indication that most likely we will not have enough reviewers to make these new tools work efficiently? Or are these things not
  • Are all activities related to H&I and triage done by regular users, or will this mean also some additional strain on moderators?
  • What are some other likely problems and obstacles when introducing triage and H&I to a new site?
  • Was introducing these review queues discussed on some Stack Exchange sites? And if yes what were their reasons not to introduce them or to postpone the decision? (I only found this post, which was made relatively soon after triage was introduced on SO: Is there a plan to test Triage review at Programmers? It do not see much further discussion about this on that particular meta site.)
  • What is experience with these tools on Stack Overflow? Did they help to improve situation? (If, for example, half of the SO users think that they have actually made things worse, we should learn from mistakes of others and do not repeat them here.) What is the reception of these tools from the viewpoint of users who help moderate site by actively taking part in the review queues? How does it look like from the viewpoint of users whose posts end up in H&I/triage, compared to the workflow before implementing them (when such questions would be likely put on hold and then handled in reopen review queue if the OP improved them)?
  • Is it possible to assess whether we have enough stuff of this site for training the algorithms which decide which questions enter triage?
  • Clearly, if it is implemented, we as the users will have to learn to work with the new tools. Other than that, does it change how much work has to be done by the community? For example, is it likely that if the newly review queues are created, the number of review needed in close votes review queue will decrease and the total number of reviews will be approximately the same?
  • Can we somehow estimate whether we have enough reviewers to make these new systems effective? For example, we can see some close votes review stats and everybody active in reviewing noticed that close votes review haven't been empty for quite a long time. If we do not have enough reviewers to clear up the close votes review queue, it is an indication that most likely we will not have enough reviewers to make these new tools work efficiently? Or are these things not
  • Are all activities related to H&I and triage done by regular users, or will this mean also some additional strain on moderators?
  • What are some other likely problems and obstacles when introducing triage and H&I to a new site?
  • Was introducing these review queues discussed on some Stack Exchange sites? And if yes what were their reasons not to introduce them or to postpone the decision? (I only found this post, which was made relatively soon after triage was introduced on SO: Is there a plan to test Triage review at Programmers? It do not see much further discussion about this on that particular meta site.)
  • What is experience with these tools on Stack Overflow? Did they help to improve situation? (If, for example, half of the SO users think that they have actually made things worse, we should learn from mistakes of others and do not repeat them here.) What is the reception of these tools from the viewpoint of users who help moderate site by actively taking part in the review queues? How does it look like from the viewpoint of users whose posts end up in H&I/triage, compared to the workflow before implementing them (when such questions would be likely put on hold and then handled in reopen review queue if the OP improved them)?
  • Is it possible to assess whether we have enough stuff on this site for training the algorithms which decide which questions enter triage?
  • Clearly, if it is implemented, we as the users will have to learn to work with the new tools. Other than that, does it change how much work has to be done by the community? For example, is it likely that if the newly review queues are created, the number of review needed in close votes review queue will decrease and the total number of reviews will be approximately the same?
  • Can we somehow estimate whether we have enough reviewers to make these new systems effective? For example, we can see some close votes review stats and everybody active in reviewing noticed that close votes review haven't been empty for quite a long time. If we do not have enough reviewers to clear up the close votes review queue, it is an indication that most likely we will not have enough reviewers to make these new tools work efficiently? Or are these things not
  • Are all activities related to H&I and triage done by regular users, or will this mean also some additional strain on moderators?
  • What are some other likely problems and obstacles when introducing triage and H&I to a new site?
  • Was introducing these review queues discussed on some Stack Exchange sites? And if yes what were their reasons not to introduce them or to postpone the decision? (I only found this post, which was made relatively soon after triage was introduced on SO: Is there a plan to test Triage review at Programmers? It do not see much further discussion about this on that particular meta site.)
added 5 characters in body
Source Link
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
  • 55.1k
  • 9
  • 165
  • 297
  • What is experience with these tools on Stack Overflow? Did they help to improve situation? (If, for example, half of the SO users think that they have actually made things worse, we should learn from mistakes of others and do not repeat them here.) What is the reception of these tools from the viewpoint of users who help moderate site by actively taking part in the review queues? How does it look like from the viewpoint of users whose posts end up in H&I/triage, compared to the workflow before implementing them (when such questions would be likely put on hold and then handled in reopen review queue if the OP improved them)?
  • Is it possible to assess whether we have enough stuff of this site for training the algorithms which decide which questions enter triage?
  • Clearly, if it is implemented, we as the users will have to learn to work with the new tools. Other than that, does it change how much work has to be done by the community? For example, is it likely that if the newly review queues are created, the number of review needed in close votes review queue will decrease and the total number of reviews will be approximately the same?
  • Can we somehow estimate whether we have enough reviewers to make these new systems effective? For example, we can see some close votes review stats and everybody active in reviewing noticed that close votes review haven't been empty for quite a long time. If we do not have enough reviewers to clear up the close votes review queue, it is an indication that most likely we will not have enough reviewers to make these new tools work efficiently? Or are these things not
  • Are all activities related to H&I and triage done by regular users, or will this mean also some additional strain on moderators?
  • What are some other likely problems and obstacles when introducing triage and H&I to a new site?
  • Was introducing these review queues discussed on some Stack Exchange sites? And if yes what were their reasons not to introduce them or to postpone the decision? (I only found this post, which was made relatively soon after triage was introduced on SO: Is there a plan to test Triage review at Programmers? It do not see much further discussion about this on that particular meta site.)
  • What is experience with these tools on Stack Overflow? Did they help to improve situation? (If, for example, half of the SO users think that they have actually made things worse, we should learn from mistakes of others and do not repeat them here.) What is the reception of these tools from the viewpoint of users who help moderate site by actively taking part in the review queues? How does it look like from the viewpoint of users whose posts end up in H&I/triage, compared to the workflow before implementing them (when such questions would be likely put on hold and then handled in reopen review queue if the OP improved them)?
  • Is it possible to assess whether we have enough stuff of this site for training the algorithms which decide which questions enter triage?
  • Clearly, if it is implemented, we as the users will have to learn to work with the new tools. Other than that, does it change how much work has to be done by the community? For example, is it likely that if the newly review queues are created, the number of review needed in close votes review queue will decrease and the total number of reviews will be approximately the same?
  • Can we somehow estimate whether we have enough reviewers to make these new systems effective? For example, we can see some close votes review stats and everybody active in reviewing noticed that close votes review haven't been empty for quite a long time. If we do not have enough reviewers to clear up the close votes review queue, it is an indication that most likely we will not have enough reviewers to make these new tools work efficiently? Or are these things not
  • Are all activities related to H&I and triage done by regular users, or will this mean also some additional strain on moderators?
  • What are some other likely problems and obstacles when introducing triage and H&I to a new site?
  • Was introducing these review queues discussed on some Stack Exchange sites? And if yes what were their reasons not to introduce them or to postpone the decision? (I only found this post, which was relatively soon after triage was introduced on SO: Is there a plan to test Triage review at Programmers? It do not see much further discussion about this on that particular meta site.)
  • What is experience with these tools on Stack Overflow? Did they help to improve situation? (If, for example, half of the SO users think that they have actually made things worse, we should learn from mistakes of others and do not repeat them here.) What is the reception of these tools from the viewpoint of users who help moderate site by actively taking part in the review queues? How does it look like from the viewpoint of users whose posts end up in H&I/triage, compared to the workflow before implementing them (when such questions would be likely put on hold and then handled in reopen review queue if the OP improved them)?
  • Is it possible to assess whether we have enough stuff of this site for training the algorithms which decide which questions enter triage?
  • Clearly, if it is implemented, we as the users will have to learn to work with the new tools. Other than that, does it change how much work has to be done by the community? For example, is it likely that if the newly review queues are created, the number of review needed in close votes review queue will decrease and the total number of reviews will be approximately the same?
  • Can we somehow estimate whether we have enough reviewers to make these new systems effective? For example, we can see some close votes review stats and everybody active in reviewing noticed that close votes review haven't been empty for quite a long time. If we do not have enough reviewers to clear up the close votes review queue, it is an indication that most likely we will not have enough reviewers to make these new tools work efficiently? Or are these things not
  • Are all activities related to H&I and triage done by regular users, or will this mean also some additional strain on moderators?
  • What are some other likely problems and obstacles when introducing triage and H&I to a new site?
  • Was introducing these review queues discussed on some Stack Exchange sites? And if yes what were their reasons not to introduce them or to postpone the decision? (I only found this post, which was made relatively soon after triage was introduced on SO: Is there a plan to test Triage review at Programmers? It do not see much further discussion about this on that particular meta site.)
added 248 characters in body
Source Link
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
  • 55.1k
  • 9
  • 165
  • 297
  • What is experience with these tools on Stack Overflow? Did they help to improve situation? (If, for example, half of the SO users think that they have actually made things worse, we should learn from mistakes of others and do not repeat them here.) What is the reception of these tools from the viewpoint of users who help moderate site by actively taking part in the review queues? How does it look like from the viewpoint of users whose posts end up in H&I/triage, compared to the workflow before implementing them (when such questions would be likely put on hold and then handled in reopen review queue if the OP improved them)?
  • Is it possible to assess whether we have enough stuff of this site for training the algorithms which decide which questions enter triage?
  • Clearly, if it is implemented, we as the users will have to learn to work with the new tools. Other than that, does it change how much work has to be done by the community? For example, is it likely that if the newly review queues are created, the number of review needed in close votes review queue will decrease and the total number of reviews will be approximately the same?
  • Can we somehow estimate whether we have enough reviewers to make these new systems effective? For example, we can see some close votes review stats and everybody active in reviewing noticed that close votes review haven't been empty for quite a long time. If we do not have enough reviewers to clear up the close votes review queue, it is an indication that most likely we will not have enough reviewers to make these new tools work efficiently? Or are these things not
  • Are all activities related to H&I and triage done by regular users, or will this mean also some additional strain on moderators?
  • What are some other likely problems and obstacles when introducing triage and H&I to a new site? 
  • Was introducing themthese review queues discussed on some Stack Exchange sites? And if yes what were their reasons not to introduce them or to postpone the decision? (I only found this post, which was relatively soon after triage was introduced on SO: Is there a plan to test Triage review at Programmers? It do not see much further discussion about this on that particular meta site.)
  • What is experience with these tools on Stack Overflow? Did they help to improve situation? (If, for example, half of the SO users think that they have actually made things worse, we should learn from mistakes of others and do not repeat them here.) What is the reception of these tools from the viewpoint of users who help moderate site by actively taking part in the review queues? How does it look like from the viewpoint of users whose posts end up in H&I/triage, compared to the workflow before implementing them (when such questions would be likely put on hold and then handled in reopen review queue if the OP improved them)?
  • Is it possible to assess whether we have enough stuff of this site for training the algorithms which decide which questions enter triage?
  • Clearly, if it is implemented, we as the users will have to learn to work with the new tools. Other than that, does it change how much work has to be done by the community? For example, is it likely that if the newly review queues are created, the number of review needed in close votes review queue will decrease and the total number of reviews will be approximately the same?
  • Can we somehow estimate whether we have enough reviewers to make these new systems effective? For example, we can see some close votes review stats and everybody active in reviewing noticed that close votes review haven't been empty for quite a long time. If we do not have enough reviewers to clear up the close votes review queue, it is an indication that most likely we will not have enough reviewers to make these new tools work efficiently? Or are these things not
  • Are all activities related to H&I and triage done by regular users, or will this mean also some additional strain on moderators?
  • What are some other likely problems and obstacles when introducing triage and H&I to a new site? Was introducing them discussed on some Stack Exchange sites? And if yes what were their reasons not to introduce them or to postpone the decision?
  • What is experience with these tools on Stack Overflow? Did they help to improve situation? (If, for example, half of the SO users think that they have actually made things worse, we should learn from mistakes of others and do not repeat them here.) What is the reception of these tools from the viewpoint of users who help moderate site by actively taking part in the review queues? How does it look like from the viewpoint of users whose posts end up in H&I/triage, compared to the workflow before implementing them (when such questions would be likely put on hold and then handled in reopen review queue if the OP improved them)?
  • Is it possible to assess whether we have enough stuff of this site for training the algorithms which decide which questions enter triage?
  • Clearly, if it is implemented, we as the users will have to learn to work with the new tools. Other than that, does it change how much work has to be done by the community? For example, is it likely that if the newly review queues are created, the number of review needed in close votes review queue will decrease and the total number of reviews will be approximately the same?
  • Can we somehow estimate whether we have enough reviewers to make these new systems effective? For example, we can see some close votes review stats and everybody active in reviewing noticed that close votes review haven't been empty for quite a long time. If we do not have enough reviewers to clear up the close votes review queue, it is an indication that most likely we will not have enough reviewers to make these new tools work efficiently? Or are these things not
  • Are all activities related to H&I and triage done by regular users, or will this mean also some additional strain on moderators?
  • What are some other likely problems and obstacles when introducing triage and H&I to a new site? 
  • Was introducing these review queues discussed on some Stack Exchange sites? And if yes what were their reasons not to introduce them or to postpone the decision? (I only found this post, which was relatively soon after triage was introduced on SO: Is there a plan to test Triage review at Programmers? It do not see much further discussion about this on that particular meta site.)
added 248 characters in body
Source Link
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
  • 55.1k
  • 9
  • 165
  • 297
added 34 characters in body
Source Link
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
  • 55.1k
  • 9
  • 165
  • 297
added 36 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
  • 55.1k
  • 9
  • 165
  • 297
deleted 3 characters in body
Source Link
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
  • 55.1k
  • 9
  • 165
  • 297
Source Link
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
  • 55.1k
  • 9
  • 165
  • 297