Timeline for How can we make First Posts review actually useful?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
48 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/ | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 20:57 | answer | added | Scimonster | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 15, 2014 at 2:49 | history | edited | Shog9StaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 199 characters in body |
| S Jul 2, 2014 at 20:32 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jul 2, 2014 at 20:32 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Jun 29, 2014 at 11:54 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jun 29, 2014 at 12:25 | |||||
| S Jun 24, 2014 at 19:13 | history | bounty started | Rachel | ||
| S Jun 24, 2014 at 19:13 | history | notice added | Rachel | Draw attention | |
| Jun 19, 2014 at 19:56 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @hichris I see. Now I know why the posts I review already have a comment or a down/upvote. Freelance reviewing obviously is faster. | |
| Jun 19, 2014 at 17:48 | comment | added | hichris123 | @Trilarion The post has to have existed for at least 15 minutes to be put in the First Posts queue. | |
| Jun 18, 2014 at 19:11 | answer | added | Brad Larson | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 18, 2014 at 19:10 | answer | added | Rachel | timeline score: 15 | |
| Jun 18, 2014 at 18:38 | comment | added | user152859 | @Shog any updates? Something going to happen soon? | |
| Jun 18, 2014 at 18:31 | history | edited | Shog9StaffMod | edited tags | |
| Jun 18, 2014 at 16:44 | answer | added | gnat | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 18, 2014 at 12:19 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | Btw. my impression with the first post review queue is that it is empty most of the time but also that the posts are already some minutes old if I get some. Is there any delay in the system so that they are not shown right away? Time is of the essence for such reviews I would say. | |
| Jun 18, 2014 at 6:05 | comment | added | Werner | As side-reference, there are some unresolved issues with the First Post review queue... For what it's worth, a vote-requirement would not really work on TeX - LaTeX, as we are a bunch of up-voting folk; as such, I think it will point to robo-reviewing by up-voting. | |
| Jun 18, 2014 at 3:08 | answer | added | Michael Hampton | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 23:53 | comment | added | ɥʇǝS | After following some of the links now, I see some stats. Are those recent? | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 23:52 | comment | added | ɥʇǝS | @Shog9 So catching most of the spam/bad questions as they come in isn't useful? Making sure good Q's and A's get good feedback isn't useful? I thought the first post queue was in place so we could check all the new user posts as they come in, flag, edit, comment, close and vote as needed. Without the queue the amount of that that gets done will go down drastically will it not? Before we decide to pull it I'd really like to see some stats on that. I like your third bullet though. If a question is getting lots of attention already, no need for more people to review it (esp. on bigger sites). | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 21:59 | comment | added | BlueRaja | "Now most folks reviewing first posts don't do anything at all" - One third of those reviews downvoted, flagged, and/or commented on the post. That sounds like a success to me. | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 21:51 | answer | added | Martin F | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 20:44 | answer | added | Jon EricsonStaffMod | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 19:32 | answer | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | timeline score: 33 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 19:25 | answer | added | Joe | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 19:24 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | Robo-reviewers aren't currently that much of a problem, @Savanna. Fixing that is actually pretty easy; making the queue do something useful is harder. | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 19:22 | comment | added | Savanna | Could we just remove all badges related to reviewing in the First Post review queue (and maybe the other ones as well)? We'd eliminate robo-reviewers and have less of a need for review auditing, while still keeping the benefits it brings. | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 19:10 | comment | added | Michael | For Stackoverflow: I think the first review queue would PROBABLY be actually useful if first questions would actually require that at least one reviewer has hit the "do nothing" button. otherwise it shouldn't show up on the site at all! (and if there are more downvotes than upvotes from the reviewers it shouldn't show up on the site neither, of course.) Reviewing questions after they are already visible on the front page is totally useless, in my opinion. | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 18:40 | answer | added | Matt | timeline score: 16 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 18:35 | answer | added | nicael -misses Sha- | timeline score: 6 | |
| S Jun 17, 2014 at 18:25 | history | suggested | Jacob | CC BY-SA 3.0 | duplicate word. |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 18:20 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 17, 2014 at 18:25 | |||||
| Jun 17, 2014 at 18:07 | answer | added | HopelessN00b | timeline score: 19 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 16:59 | comment | added | László Papp | I think this review queue is very useful to catch spam and low-quality posts. | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 16:34 | answer | added | rolfl | timeline score: 67 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 16:20 | answer | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | timeline score: 23 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 16:02 | answer | added | TildalWave | timeline score: 17 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 16:01 | answer | added | mhlester | timeline score: 45 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 16:00 | comment | added | Amicable | Personally I was not actually aware that the first posts queue was to welcome users to the site. Although I do often post comments when reviewing that queue I thought it was in primarily in place because new users are much more likely to make posts which need either major editing, flagging or downvoting to note that they are "not worth the time". | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 15:51 | answer | added | Rory Alsop | timeline score: 75 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 15:50 | comment | added | Jonathan Garber | I like the idea of separate question and answer queues. As much as it might introduce fatigue, ("omigosh, not ANOTHER queue!",) it would reduce the necessary mental effort to process what is going on. (A very short answer could easily require different treatment from a very short question, for instance.) That being said, forced voting in the question queue is... questionable. (I'm sorry. Just kidding. I'm not really.) I would probably avoid the question queue were that implemented. | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 15:50 | answer | added | user213963 | timeline score: 14 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 15:49 | comment | added | PlasmaHH | I think the usefulness of a first post review boils down to the question if the people posting "actionworthy" first questions are willing to learn from those actions we take. | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 15:49 | answer | added | enderland | timeline score: 28 | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 15:48 | comment | added | Anubian Noob | It's useful if you're not a robo-reviewer. I personally think that my comments from that queue could be useful to the person. | |
| Jun 17, 2014 at 15:21 | history | asked | Shog9StaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |