Timeline for What, exactly, are moderators doing to review reviewers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 19:33 | vote | accept | Andy | ||
| Aug 31, 2015 at 21:18 | comment | added | ArtOfCode Mod | @Gilles good news, we're not doing it. The system's not being used any more. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 20:20 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | I object to your labeling of reviews as “good” and “bad”. Your classification is purely based on going with the majority. What if the majority gets it wrong? And yes, it happens. Ok, so you'll look out for false positives. But that system isn't very useful since in my experience many bad reviewers will never trigger anything — a common type of bad reviewer systematically picks the majority option to avoid spending the time to think. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 17:02 | history | edited | ArtOfCodeMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 166 characters in body |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 16:01 | comment | added | ArtOfCode Mod | @Andy Major point: yes, it's more work. It's work that we're willing to do, it's work that we have time to do, it's work we can do well. If it weren't, it wouldn't be happening. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 14:54 | comment | added | Martijn | @Zizouz212 so what is this solution solving? | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 14:49 | comment | added | Zizouz212 Mod | @Martijn Lack of traffic isn't really a problem to "solve", it's more of a race against time. Quite honestly, we're getting new users, many of which are asking questions: a good sign. We've placed community ads on sites such as Programmers and Game Dev (Stack Overflow doesn't accept community ads). | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 13:41 | comment | added | Andy | "But we review them on a case by case basis!" you say. Yes. You do. You add work to your plate. Work that could be spent elsewhere. You are giving yourself work unnecessarily. If there is a problem with reviewers (robo or otherwise) deal with them. Don't create a new threshold they have to pass. This process is going to make the community unhappy (if the communication doesn't improve) and will slow down how you deal with problems because if you suddenly issue a ban now and the user isn't below your magic number, you've just acted against how you said you were going to act. Hello drama! [4/4] | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 13:40 | comment | added | Andy | Take this to the next step. How do new users gain rep? Edits. Robo goes and makes an edit. It's questionable. It goes to the review and other robot-reviewers approve it. +2 for the suggestion! Rinse and repeat. Since the community agrees these are good (it passed the review process) you are saying you're not acting on it. Let this repeat for a handful of reviewers and now they can all get the association bonus. Thank you, from a moderator, for allowing users to enter my site with a head start on permissions. You could have stopped bad reviews but this new policy is saying you won't. [3/4] | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 13:39 | comment | added | Andy | The robo reviewers, on the other hand, have all just had a successful flag. Flag weight increased! Rinse and repeat. As more and more of their reviews get accepted by other robo-reviewers that likelihood of their weight ever reaching 0 or 0.5 or whatever threshold is set gets lower and lower. You are incentivizing a problem that already exists elsewhere. Not only that, but you are allowing this bad behavior to be rewarded by explicitly saying you won't punish them because their review weight is good. [2/4] | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 13:39 | comment | added | Andy | "If people do lots of good reviews, are we going to object?" - Based on how this reads, yes. "This is done by comparing how the user reviewed it with the outcome of the review, and what state the post is currently in" Your good reviews can be overwhelmed by robo-reviewers. The larger sites on the network already seem a lot of 'questionable' reviews get through. Now you are potentially punishing people that review correctly but still lose the to the "community" on reviews [1/4] | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 11:52 | comment | added | Martijn | Another question that - at least to me - remains open is which problem this is trying to solve. This might be a solution in search of a problem. Our primary "problem" to me is lack of traffic and new questions. This seems to be somewhat along the lines of "We must do something. This is something. Thus we should do this". | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 11:37 | comment | added | ArtOfCode Mod | @Andy Definitely the latter. In all seriousness, I check these every couple days, and I recompile the stats each week. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 11:36 | comment | added | ArtOfCode Mod | @Andy <= 0.5. I'd be happy to include a more concrete number, if you've got a suggestion. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 11:36 | comment | added | Andy | How often are you checking these weights? Daily? Weekly? When you get bored? Every other Tuesday if you had cake the day before? | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 11:35 | comment | added | Andy | "Approaching zero"...that seems subjective. Can you elaborate on when "approaching zero" will be actioned vs something more concrete like "is zero" or "is negative" | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 10:57 | history | answered | ArtOfCodeMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |