66

A new answer popped up on an old question earlier and it popped into the Late Answer review queue. Imagine you're reviewing... Does this look like a good answer?

0 Ubuntu Software Center “Failed to download…” 0 Ubuntu Software Center doesn't let me install any software Hot Network Questions Block employee access to public cloud How do KLT and SVD differ from each other? What application supports working with sprites (PNGs) over 10,000 px wide? Can someone explain the ECB Penguin?

It's a bunch of nonsense copied from the sidebar.
It's not an answer.
It's easy to see that if you read it.

And that's the problem. Some reviewers aren't reading what they're being asked to. That's the entire point of review: read it, read the question (if applicable) and work out whether something needs to be done to fix, improve or remove the post.

This isn't the first time this has happened but I want people to know that I want it to be the last. It's not fair on the other reviewers to allow this to happen.

Rushing review hurts the site and wastes others' time.

If you don't have time, don't review, somebody else will do it properly. If you can't understand or don't know which way to vote, click the skip button. Do not bulk-action a load of stuff without reading it.

We've been through this before and I've talked to offenders directly but from now on if I catch you willfully bombing a review queue, you will end up with a review ban.

And yes, if you see somebody else doing this (the review history is public to many users), this is something we need to be told about. Don't harass the user, just flag one of the incorrectly reviewed posts and use the Other reason to point out the problem and we can be thorough with our investigation.

24
  • 2
    I think this should at least make them more cautious about their actions.
    – Braiam
    Feb 14 '14 at 14:23
  • 2
    Thank you for bringing this up... Lately, I have been coming across users who seemed to be clicking buttons as soon as the page loaded in their browsers - haven't flagged anyone except a few in the past. Should flag more such users who seem to be abusing the system as I come across them..
    – Aditya
    Feb 14 '14 at 19:15
  • 1
    I only see my own review history - are those "many" to whom the history is public the >10k users?
    – guntbert
    Feb 15 '14 at 17:21
  • @guntbert Yes only >10k rep users can see the other users' review history. Feb 15 '14 at 20:50
  • 2
    @guntbert: Review history is public for anyone to see - for instance mine... Go to a users profile >> Activity >> Reviews
    – Aditya
    Feb 16 '14 at 8:59
  • @aditya but for using this you must already have some suspicion?
    – guntbert
    Feb 16 '14 at 17:18
  • @guntbert: See the image in this answer.... I have come across a couple of such instances and flagged some of them....
    – Aditya
    Feb 17 '14 at 11:01
  • 2
    Who reviews the reviewers?
    – Nick T
    Feb 18 '14 at 18:18
  • 17
    I agree with at @Oli (how not to?) but as a new-promoted reviewer, I am a bit unpleased by how the system work. Example: I start a review, read it, ponder, and decide to reject. And a message pops up: this review has been already approved. (If you try to modify the text is even more probable). This is at least wasted time (mine). The system should wait for the needed reviewers to finish before letting another one even starting doing the review... (with a timeout, but a reasonable one).
    – Rmano
    Feb 18 '14 at 20:10
  • 2
    meta Stack Overflow. It is the meta site for all network wide discussions. It should probably be called meta Stack Exchange, but meh.
    – Mahesh
    Feb 19 '14 at 10:46
  • 6
    I like the idea of checking-out review items. I've requested it on MSO. Still, it's quite a big request so don't expect it to happen overnight (if at all).
    – Oli Mod
    Feb 19 '14 at 10:59
  • 2
    @Oli I don't think this should be featured any longer than it has been. The message has gotten through now, I think. Especially given the "if I catch you..." and the highlighted *need* which makes this post a tiny bit negative and needlessly intimidating. I cannot take away the feature tag, however. That is up to you.
    – don.joey
    Feb 21 '14 at 14:56
  • 2
    @don.joey You underestimate the damage bad/robo reviewers do. If you review fine how is it intimidating?
    – Seth
    Feb 23 '14 at 19:03
  • 1
    @Aditya I would flag them (users who robo review). Robo reviewers are really, really bad. Sometimes they just need a talking to, but no one will talk to them if they don't know it is needed ;)
    – Seth
    Feb 23 '14 at 19:04
  • 1
    @don.joey For any other problem I'd agree but reviewers (even the less attentive) are more integrated into the site than other users. I already know who spends least time on each review and they're the sort of people who are also active here on Meta. You'd recognise their names. People can get lazy (or arrogant) once they've been doing review for a while. This post is here to remind all reviewers that it's an important job that underpins site quality.
    – Oli Mod
    Feb 24 '14 at 10:21
2

Perhaps adding a back button for review cues would reduce the possibility of reviewer error going uncorrected.

1
  • Bad suggestion? why?
    – Elder Geek
    Jun 8 '14 at 15:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/8421/reviewers-need-to-be-mindful-of-their-actions?cb=1
meta.askubuntu.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-39
163397
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:J332SHCBI3KEHRPFDZIG47LJGINWJZVD
<urn:uuid:650c1276-703c-4e5f-92ad-68c5492bdfbc>
2021-09-22T11:22:15Z
151.101.1.69
text/html
sha1:2JIHYQI5KCBUFYXKY73D5MYRIO66YPHH
<urn:uuid:0b5ad4bc-417f-438f-8240-e3b160659ba0>
https://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/8421/reviewers-need-to-be-mindful-of-their-actions?cb=1
response
<urn:uuid:eba0cbab-8a8d-4a46-894b-b417050cb0df>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-39
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-156
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (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: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/