1
$\begingroup$

I've been experimenting today with the review features. The close vote review queue is in bad shape, as it contains over 100 items. This makes it not terribly useful because most of the questions that appear are old. It would be much more useful if there were fewer questions on it. In particular, there were several of old questions that were obviously duplicates but nonetheless were stuck at 3 or 4 close votes.

I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about how to clean this queue out a little so that it will become more useful. I had a couple ideas myself which I will mention as answers to see if people want to vote them up.

[Update]: As of January 2019, the close vote review queue is normally about 300 now. Is it possible that folks who have access to the review queues get their 1k reviews in for the Steward badge, and then stop reviewing? Perhaps we could add more badges at higher levels of reviews?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your "experiment" voted to close 22 questions in 22 minutes. Can you possibly have given careful consideration to that many questions that quickly? Do you think that this is constructive? Please see the prior discussion in Unusual number of closures. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Oct 4 '12 at 23:41
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ If the issue required careful consideration of more than 10 seconds then I didn't vote to close. There's a lot of clear close cases hanging around with several votes to close already. And yes I thought it was constructive, I was looking for something to do that was more constructive than arguing on meta. $\endgroup$ – Noah Snyder Oct 5 '12 at 9:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It would be much more constructive if the "vote to close review queue" were shorter and so the questions were fresh. Hence this question. $\endgroup$ – Noah Snyder Oct 5 '12 at 9:24
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Then the problem is even worse than I surmised. If you are voting to close with less than 10 seconds of consideration then I don't think that this is fair to the OP. Generally, even simple matters such as exact duplicates can not be evaluated so quickly. Please be more considerate. Suppose that it was one of your questions that someone voted to close without careful consideration - with the (higher?) goal of "shrinking a queue". How would you feel about that? A little empathy goes a long way in such matters. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Oct 5 '12 at 14:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Do you think that "shrinking the close vote review queue" should play any role in the decision to close a question? $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Oct 5 '12 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ I think individual decisions on individual questions should be made on their own merits. I do think that the size of the close vote queue is an indication that the site would benefit from more people looking at questions that have several close votes and giving their close/not close opinion. $\endgroup$ – Noah Snyder Oct 5 '12 at 17:12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, I certainly agree on the first point. But I worry that the enforced linear traversal of the queue may force folks into making decisions that they might not otherwise make. I'd much rather it be a list so that folks can traverse it in whatever order is natural. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Oct 5 '12 at 17:20
  • $\begingroup$ This question and one of the answers seem to have lost their sole upvote in the last day. I assume this is because someone's account was deleted? $\endgroup$ – Noah Snyder Oct 8 '12 at 14:16
  • $\begingroup$ I downvoted now because this issue is resolved now, and the question got bumped. If the vote count is negative, that won't happen. I'd be glad to close as no longer relevant, but this is not an option. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Feb 17 '13 at 5:39
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila: Sounds reasonable. I can't downvote my own question apparently. $\endgroup$ – Noah Snyder Feb 17 '13 at 5:42
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I wrote this because someone just canceled out my upvote. :-) Well... I voted to close as too localized. I suppose it fits somehow. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Feb 17 '13 at 5:42
  • $\begingroup$ The Close Votes review queue is stubbornly large, sitting over 170 most of the time that I've noticed lately. Perhaps we could increase the number of reviews that people could do on this queue? I'm only allowed 20 reviews per day. $\endgroup$ – Adrian Keister Jul 18 '18 at 15:59
  • $\begingroup$ @AdrianKeister I wrote some things related to your recent edit (and some of your comments) in Math Meta chat. (Since you have talked about several different points, it might be quite difficult to respond to all of them in comments.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 22 at 16:36
-4
$\begingroup$

Answer: it is no longer possible to shrink this, or other review queues. They rarely have more than a couple of items in them at any given time, and more often than not they sit empty.

Unfortunately SE does not generate a graph for the length of the queue as a function of time, so I have no data to offer apart from my observations.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I strongly disagree with this answer. The M.SE Close Votes queue rarely has fewer than 170, and I've never seen it less than 150 recently. $\endgroup$ – Adrian Keister Jul 18 '18 at 20:57
  • $\begingroup$ Some estimate of number of reviewed items as function of time can be obtained from SEDE. I took the query from this post. However, SEDE does not contain data about the questions that have already been deleted, so the actual numbers are bigger. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 22 at 17:05
2
$\begingroup$

There are two options here:

  1. We (SE staff) change the criteria for items that appear in the queue to artificially make the number smaller.

  2. Folks vote on items according to their conscience, and over time it drops. I rather prefer this one.

Please note that it would take only five people under a week to clear the queue as it stands, either by voting to close, or selecting "Do not close" on each item they encountered. If it takes longer, or requires more people to chime in, that's just fine.

Also note that new items, and items that have multiple votes to either close or not close will tend to "float to the top" - more people will see them than older / less-voted-on items.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Right, part of the idea here was to recruit said 5 people by calling some attention to the problem. However, I do think making it smaller (say by having a separate queue for things from the past month) is worth considering. $\endgroup$ – Noah Snyder Oct 6 '12 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ We could also increase the number of reviews folks could do in one day. $\endgroup$ – Adrian Keister Jul 18 '18 at 20:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Then people spend more time looking at more crap. That's... not ideal either. $\endgroup$ – Shog9 Jul 18 '18 at 20:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Shog9: No one's forcing people to do reviews, right? $\endgroup$ – Adrian Keister Jul 19 '18 at 13:03
  • $\begingroup$ @AdrianKeister The cap means that each individual has only a limited impact. Imagine the chaos when 5 individuals agreed to close/leave open (delete as appropriate depending on your opinion) every question on the list! $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jan 23 at 11:45
  • $\begingroup$ @user1729: Right, but increasing the cap wouldn't change the limited impact each individual has. If you made it 30 instead of 20, that would not be a gigantic change radically altering the face of M.SE. I couldn't parse your second sentence - I have no idea what it means. $\endgroup$ – Adrian Keister Jan 23 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ How many close votes do you cast, on average, per day, @NoahSnyder. Do you cast 20 of yours per day in the close review queue? $\endgroup$ – Namaste Jan 23 at 21:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AdrianKeister I agree increasing the cap within reason is not a bad idea. But increasing it too far could be detrimental. My second sentence is either "Imagine the chaos when 5 individuals agreed to close every question on the list!" or "Imagine the chaos when 5 individuals agreed to leave open every question on the list!". Whichever situation you feel is more chaotic is the sentence you pick. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Jan 24 at 9:44
-3
$\begingroup$

We could have a "close vote review queue" party, where some particular day a bunch of people agreed to all do a bunch of close vote reviewing.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What's stopping you on any day from doing so? Quite a few users are committed to using their privilege to vote to close very poor questions, every single day. If you feel so strongly about it, what do you do with your 50 allotted votes per day to close? For some,part of every day is spent by people who all do a bunch of close vote reviewing. $\endgroup$ – Namaste Jan 23 at 20:57
-3
$\begingroup$

We could have some moderators clear out some of the old questions by either casting a binding moderator vote to close, or closing then reopening to reset the votes. If a question is more than a month old then it's not really a big deal whether it's closed or not, so having moderators just make decisions on those old questions seems less problematic than on new questions.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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