The various review tasks which give rise to these badges are of vastly different incidences, difficulty and significance.

For example delete votes are frequent and easy to accumulate (as well as occasionally being controversial and sometimes open to forms of misuse). The decision is straightforward in many cases.

By contrast approving edits is a challenging task requiring significant attention to detail - and a good edit is a wonderful thing.

It struck me the other day that there is inadequate recognition of the harder tasks in relation to the easier - and we should cherish good editors (this is not a plea for myself, I'm not in the league I'm talking about).

So would it be possible to recalibrate badges in the light of experience on the site so that they represented comparable effort, rather than comparable scores?

There are other categories which might be reconsidered, though I have to say that having a gradation of difficulty does have the merit of drawing people in a bit.

What do you think?


Badges don't correlate very well with the amount of time/effort spent gaining them. This goes for all badges, really. How many of us haven't laboured long on one answer for perhaps a handful of upvotes, and later receive a Nice Answer badge for a trivial (and sometimes snarky) observation? And what about tag badges? It sure seems like getting a (calculus) gold badge is much easier than an (algebraic-geometry) silver badge.

Badges are mainly there to promote desired behaviour on the site. Badges such as Reviewer/Steward are additionally pats on the back for milestones reached. Completeing 1000 review tasks of any one kind does feel milestone-y. Completing 823 Suggested Edits review tasks doesn't.

No, I don't think that the Reviewer/Steward badges should have different criteria for different review tasks. This would complicate the badge system without any real purpose that I can think of.

  • $\begingroup$ I ignore the Custodian badge because those are likely just-in-time rewards to say, "What you just did. That was good. Do it more." The number of review tasks needed here (1), is extremely unlikely to be changed. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Jul 5 '15 at 21:43

Some edits are trivial to approve and to perform (and even if a careful check of some edits is a significant effort there is no guarantee at all the reviewer even did that). Yet, some low quality reviews essentially requirer one to check the full thread to see if the answer-post is a valid attempt to answer or something else.

Both are pretty frequent. What is quite rare are late answer reviews, but then the stakes are somewhat lower there.

So, what reviews should be of higher value than others is quite unclear to me.

Moreover, and crucially, I am not at all convinced if it is a good idea to draw badge-hunters to relevant tasks.

Tangentially, there are several tags for editing there is none as far as I know for casting delete votes (excepting those for self-deletes).


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .