A certain user has commented that they make use of a loophole: the user skips all of the questions in the close vote review queue, but opens the questions in a separate tab/window and votes to vote to close them there. This definitely seems to me to be an abuse and defeats the purpose of having a review limit. Is there any way we can prevent this?

  • 11
    $\begingroup$ There's a limit on close votes, too, isn't there? $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 4:45
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ For the reason Gerry mentioned this is not really a hole. If somebody thinks they are being smug, let them. When I had more time to spend in the review queues I would often do the same thing. That way you will see more of the context of the post being reviewed. I found that reaching a verdict is easier that way. Also, it is easier to decide whether to edit or not to edit. But thank you for raising the point! $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 5:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ How would you propose this loophole be closed? $\endgroup$
    – user642796
    Sep 6 '15 at 6:34
  • $\begingroup$ Quid points out that the close vote limit outside the queue is higher than other sites. 25 instead of 50 would lessen the problem. $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 12:43
  • $\begingroup$ Matt, the closure votes limit was 25. But this site is big and not enough people are actively vote to close things. Having it as 50 is just fine. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Sep 6 '15 at 15:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila Then why not allow 50 reviews? I'm not actually sure if Leave Open does anything, but if it does it should have the same weight as Close. $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 15:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is another reason to "skip" and load the page in another link. The review dialog limits what you can do (e.g., you can't always vote and/or comment from the review page). So you have to load the post in another tab to those things. But if you use the review queue links, it will move onto the next post, making it a pain to go find a link to the post you just reviewed. It's easier to just load the post in another tab, do what you want there, and then move to the next review task with "skip". $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ @CarlMummert It's not necessarily opening the question in another tab that I have a problem with. It's having a steady stream of easy-to-find questions that other users have cast close votes for allowing one to use the larger number of close votes than reviews to give one's opinion greater weight. $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 15:53
  • $\begingroup$ "It's having a steady stream of easy-to-find questions that other users have cast close votes" As I explained at least a 10k+ user has this without the review queue. too. "Leave open" (3 of them, IIRC) kicks the post out of review. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Sep 6 '15 at 15:58
  • $\begingroup$ @quid This is tagged discussion as well as feature request because I'm not sure what a good solution is. One possibility would be a way to vote to kick it out of the queue and that page, but that sounds like something that's hard to implement. $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 16:01

I do this too, sometimes. When I am feeling particularly dutiful. Why? Because this site is flooded with poor-quality questions every day and we need more people casting close votes, not less.

As Gerry Myerson points out, there's a limit of 50 close votes on questions per day, by any user (compared to the limit of 20 close vote reviews per day). So the abuse can only go so far. Moreover:

  • It is quite hard to get through 50 close votes in a day; most users probably go nowhere near this on most days;

  • The 20-review limit is mostly necessary for people who are poor reviewers, while those who open up questions in another tab are likely more conscientious and serious about their votes;

  • It doesn't seem reasonable to try to prevent users to close questions that they have open in their browser, no matter how they found them: through the close vote queue, through some browser extension or data.SE query, etc.

Therefore, I disagree that users exploiting this loophole is anything we should be concerned about.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Comment on the second bullet. This is somewhat of a problem. We have a number of roboreviewers: either they have an agenda (e.g. nearly automatically voting to close or voting to keep open everything) or appar ently think that 500 mouseclicks are worth a gold badge. The problematic reviewers all have something in common - they spend very little time per review task. The lowest average I've seen has been about 3 seconds. Thankfully moderators have access to all review data. I have written a few warnings, review bans even, in the extreme cases. $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 5:20
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ That the gap between reviews and votes is so large is somewhat rare; most SE sites have 20/25 not 20/50 (IIRC). Another point to add: for 10k+ math.stackexchange.com/tools?tab=Close provides unlimited access to questions with VTC, making this "exploit" even less of an issue as the basic information is provided anyway in almost as convenient a form. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Sep 6 '15 at 9:32
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps a solution then would be a way to allow "conscientious" users to Leave Open in a separate tab/window. Then they would gain nothing in terms of completed review tasks, and the purpose would be to express their opinion that the question should stay open. $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ @matt 1. Feature requests can take a lot of time to implement and should not be made lightly. In this case the problem doesn't seem to merit a new feature. 2. I believe skip does not count towards review tasks. $\endgroup$
    – 6005
    Sep 6 '15 at 15:32
  • $\begingroup$ @6005 No, skip does not count. That's my point. If Leave Open does something, it should be able to be "abused" in the same way, not gaining review tasks but still contributing. $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 15:33
  • $\begingroup$ @6005 I don't make this lightly either. I think Close votes are being abused by a contingent of users who think questions should be closed and deleted for bad reasons. This would be a way to prevent them from overdoing it a bit. $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 15:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MattSamuel in the reopen queue votes to reopen can be "abused" in this way, yet not leave closed reviews. In that sense the situation is symmetric. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Sep 6 '15 at 16:01
  • $\begingroup$ @quid Not quite symmetric. Questions that have been deleted that some users would want to undelete/reopen are difficult to find, while browsing through to find questions one dislikes to vote to close is easy. $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 16:05
  • $\begingroup$ @MattSamuel Mainly, I only meant to comment on your remark: "If Leave Open does something, it should be able to be "abused" in the same way, not gaining review tasks but still contributing." The "Leave Open" corresponds to "Leave closed" while "votes to close" correspond to "votes to reopen" and they are treated in the same way. By contrast "Leave X" and "Vote Y" are quiet different and it will be hard to treat them in the same way. For one thing the "votes" have an intrinsic rate limit too the "leave" not. A closed qis typically only del after 2+ days, in the interim it'd trivial to find. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Sep 6 '15 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ @quid I understand your point. Regarding the last sentence, questions that are months or years old are closed and deleted, so a two day window to reopen something is hardly equivalent. $\endgroup$ Sep 6 '15 at 16:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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