13

The system can prioritize questions in the close vote review queue based on various criteria as explained here.

I propose that if the question has been triaged as unsalvageable the system should prioritize it so that it stays on top of the close queue until review completes (or ages out per regular rules).

Make an unsalvageable triage outcome count more than all other parameters (amount of previous close reviews, age of the question, etc).

I expect quicker close reviews to help leverage the obtained strong signal about the question quality and prior efforts involved in detecting and reviewing of said triaged question.

I also expect it to help askers of unsalvageable questions to more quickly learn about what went wrong and how they can improve. (They can find obscure triage results only if they dig deep and hard into the question's - as opposed to seeing a clear and prominent close banner displayed to them right at the question page.)

See also: We should clean up posts that should be improved but haven't been and won't be - stats provided in there say that 73% of such questions eventually get closed and/or deleted, while only 2% end up with a positive score. I think that letting them linger in close review does a disservice to triage reviewers effort and deprives askers an opportunity to learn how to improve.


Note this proposal implicitly relies on assumption that inappropriate VLQ flags are declined as explained eg here. This assumption is in turn based on my own experience with such flags and on expectation that moderators simply have to decline them to prevent mod queue from being overwhelmed by matters intended to be handled by 3K close voters. If this assumption is for some reason incorrect then implementing suggested feature would require additional measures to address potential abuse, because in this case some users may be tempted to cast VLQ flag with sole purpose to gain priority advantage in close queue if question is triaged as unsalvageable.

  • 1
    Why should just the fact that a question went through Triage make it a higher priority in the Close-Vote Queue? When you complete "Unsalvageable", the user actually casts close-votes or raises close-flags? If the question gets out of Triage with an "Unsalvageable" verdict, then it already has multiple close-votes and/or close-flags, which makes it closer to being closed. Why should a question that gets multiple "Looks OK" and "Requires Editing" responses in Triage, but happens to get 1 more "Unsalvageable" than those, get a priority in the Close-Vote Queue? – Makyen Jun 24 '18 at 15:30
  • 3
    Changing this basically highly prioritizes Qs that get flagged as VLQ instead of flagged/voted for closure (what the user should've done). Flagging a Q as VLQ is basically saying "I think something's wrong, but I can't take the time (or have the ability) to edit it, or I can't figure out the right flag-/close-vote reason, so I'm going to push this off onto several other people, who are going to have to make that choice." That's good for people that are learning, but we shouldn't incentivize using VLQ instead of correctly flagging/voting to close (more than is already the case). – Makyen Jun 24 '18 at 15:46
  • 1
    I don't feel it's appropriate to incentivize people to raise a VLQ flag rather than correctly raising a close-flag or casting a close-vote. Nor do I see a question which gets multiple "Looks OK" and "Requires Editing", but slightly more "Unsalvageable" responses in Triage as a "strong signal about the question quality". How is that a stronger indication wrt. quality than a question in the Close-Vote Queue (CVQ) that's already been reviewed as "Close" 4 times in the CVQ? [BTW: You don't explain that the # of close-votes/flags doesn't affect priority (you just link), but I already knew that.] – Makyen Jun 24 '18 at 16:38
  • I think we agree that the way that the CVQ/close-voting works is broken at this point (and has been for a long time). I just don't feel this is a good way to help fix it. If it is done, then anyone who wants a question closed should raise a VLQ flag (when available) from the question page, rather than directly voting/flagging to close, because the VLQ flag will get the question closed faster. – Makyen Jun 24 '18 at 16:39
  • 1
    It has quite a bit to do with VLQ flags on questions. A question VLQ flag puts the question in Triage. For a question which is closable, it should then get multiple "Unsalvageable" responses, which put it in the CVQ. With your change, the question gets priority in the CVQ, resulting in the question being closed quickly. Thus, if I want a question closed, I should flag as VLQ, instead of casting a close-vote/flag, because if I just cast a close-vote/flag the question goes into the CVQ, and may languish there without being shown to anyone prior to the flag/vote aging away. – Makyen Jun 24 '18 at 17:07
  • 2
    @Makyen It may have a higher priority in the CV Queue once it gets there, but it would still have to go through the Triage Queue first. How quickly do things go through the Triage Queue vs the CV Queue? The difference might balance out the speed with which such posts get handled in the CV Queue. Though to be clear I am not saying I support this feature request, just felt like commenting. – TylerH Jun 25 '18 at 14:10
  • @gnat Maybe this is something exposed by SEDE that you could add to the question? How long a question spends in Triage vs how long a question spends in the Close queue, on average? – TylerH Jun 25 '18 at 14:10
  • @TylerH I found some stats in linked discussion and added them here with the explanation of how they relate to request, "73% of such questions eventually get closed and/or deleted etc..." – gnat Jun 28 '18 at 12:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/370030/in-close-queue-prioritize-questions-triaged-as-unsalvageable-to-unconditionally
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-04
123746
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:TCB54DLWEWTIQSJ56KWFHG3ZTRQ5RVWH
<urn:uuid:3b1fbc78-5103-473e-b18c-41092de61504>
2021-01-22T11:51:07Z
151.101.65.69
text/html
sha1:Q6N6JWRT7WHYC63RZNQIJACJCG2EF4JT
<urn:uuid:5f25063f-e632-4393-afe5-1ca71f649dcd>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/370030/in-close-queue-prioritize-questions-triaged-as-unsalvageable-to-unconditionally
response
<urn:uuid:19540d6e-aa6b-44f6-94ad-e31412fb75cf>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-04
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-217.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/