4

There are a LOT of questions that need an edit. Some have information added in comments that should be in the question, many are unclear, and some just aren't written in idiomatic English. But I can't edit any of them because the edit queue is full, and has been for some time.

Please, any user with over 1000 rep, can you approve or reject a dozen or so edits so that the site's overall quality can be improved?

  • Fwiw, this should be manageable. Despite very low edit (and meta viewing) activity among editors, it looks like there's only 27 items in the queue. So it just needs two people to make a run to clear it. – Jason C May 26 '17 at 18:20
  • Although the long term future may be a bit bleaker. Also, there's only ~3 users with rep >= 900 and < 1000, i.e. near future new potential reviewers. – Jason C May 26 '17 at 18:28
  • 1
    One more graph that might be useful. – Jason C May 26 '17 at 18:55
  • 1
    I am amazed the site moderators are ignoring this. IMO that is part of their role, when there is no choice. If I was a CM, I would be calling for elections on this site, removing all existing moderators ASAP. – Shadow Wizard May 29 '17 at 10:48
  • Obviously, a related post. – HDE 226868 May 30 '17 at 2:56
  • @ShadowWizard See This post – Narusan May 30 '17 at 8:08
  • 1
    @Narusan thanks, guess we can't do anything regarding moderators then. On second thought though, the core problem is giving good answers, not reviewing. And this requires more professional users, or people with enough time to perform thorough research. – Shadow Wizard May 30 '17 at 8:41
  • @ShadowWizard There are so many low-quality are just simply unanswerable questions on Health.SE that should and must be deleted, yet no one bothers to do that. Whenever I find the time and a good question, I will answer it. Right now, the problem is the latter. I'm just going through the questions to find a good one to answer. Most of the time, OP was inactive for the last month and it just bumped up because the edit was finally approved or because it is so old, and I'm not wasting my time there. – Narusan May 30 '17 at 8:44
  • @Narusan agree with all of this. Invited you to chat so we can keep discussing without making noise here, if you missed the notification let me know and I'll give the link. :) – Shadow Wizard May 30 '17 at 8:48
  • @Narusan here you go. (SO chat for some reason) – Shadow Wizard May 30 '17 at 8:50
  • Is the review full again or what is the reason that I can't edit any posts right now? – Narusan Jun 15 '17 at 16:11
3

Suggested Edits

I've been through the Suggested Edits review queue over two days (UTC; the two sections of edits were done ~6 hours apart). Some stats:

  • Total edits reviewed: 27
  • Additional edits skipped: 8
  • Edits approved: 18 (~67%)
  • Edits rejected: 7 (~26%)
  • Edits improved: 2 (~7%)

The rejections mainly came from a batch of tag wiki suggested edits that were flat-out plagiarized from a number of sources, all by the same user. I've already contacted the mods about that. On the whole, though, these percentages seem to reflect what I've seen those few times when I've reviewed edits here in the past. Most are good, some aren't.

A number of edits were suggested by Kate; I think I approved all of them which landed for me to see. They're the kind that really should get approved, like this one, where Kate fixed formatting, links, grammar, and removed some unnecessary fluff. Not all questions need that much reworking, but ones that do should deserve some effort. Thanks.

One thing that I've noticed when looking at a couple of the posts in the First Post queues, for instance, is this: There's a lot of crap floating around. There are some gems there, yeah, but there are a lot of posts that are bad, and need help. And then there are the majority of posts - not that bad, but still in need of help.

Kate's right - we need to get to the review queues. That's just a starting point, though. I think that post quality is a vicious cycle. It becomes more discouraging to wade through poor posts, which can make people not want to use the site, which in turn makes things worse, when those who care leave. Those of us who have left (I'm looking right at myself here) need to stay and try to fix this.

In terms of the queues, and a number of other factors, things are bad. They have been for a while. And they may be for some time. Here's a suggestion, though: Can everyone who has privileges for a given queue take the time to look at perhaps 5-10 posts per UTC day? That's something of a goal we can set individually. If even just four or five or six folks do this for a given queue, it might be possible to look at 100 cases a week, which is more like what Health needs.

Low Quality Posts

I went through the Low Quality posts review queue in one session. Some more stats:

  • Total posts reviewed: 10
  • Additional posts skipped: 5
  • Looks Okay votes: 2 (20%)
  • Close votes: 6 (60%)
  • Recommend deletion votes: 1 (10%)
  • Posts edited: 1 (10%)

I did downvote some posts I skipped or clicked Looks Okay on; just because a post is poor doesn't mean it should be deleted, and just because a post shouldn't be deleted doesn't mean it's good.

I'm concerned that I responded negatively to 70% of the posts I looked at. I don't think that's because of me; I think that queue is simply full of bad posts. Maybe others disagree with me.

  • Can anyone who has the privileges... this exactly is the problem. The only high rep users that are around regularly are Kate, Lucky, Carey and you. I'm usually reviewing the first posts queue if I have time, but that's about all I can do. – Narusan May 30 '17 at 8:06
  • 1
    So part of what we can also do is a lot more voting. Absolute crap questions should be downvoted if they can't be improved. Good ones should be upvoted. Same for answers. Upvoting - not frauduient, just don't be stringy - is what will give other people the rep they need to help to tidy up. – Kate Gregory May 30 '17 at 10:32
  • 1
    @Narusan That's true. More activity, especially from users who are close to having those privileges and do care, is probably the best option going forward. – HDE 226868 May 30 '17 at 19:57
  • The queue is simply full of bad answers or questions (example). I noticed that I couldn't even raise a flag anymore on "low quality", so I raised a "In need of moderator intervention"-flag. I don't know if I was supposed to do that, but this is the only way that really bad and plain outright wrong answers get deleted. – Narusan May 30 '17 at 21:02
  • @Narusan The right thing to do depends on the exact case and circumstances (see also the FAQ). In some ways, downvoting a post and leaving a comment explaining why it's bad can be more valuable than just deleting, because it demonstrates why the answer is bad. – HDE 226868 May 30 '17 at 21:09
  • @HDE226868 It's especially the activity that annoys me. Health.SE has pretty high standards when answering, and one does neither get feedback from the OP whether the explanation helped (see the low percentage of questions with an accepted answer) nor recognition of the efforts from fellow users. I'm at a point where I read through the 15 last answered questions and upvote everything that is not bad - because no one else does. However, the only way of keeping this site alive is by encouraging new users to be active and maintaining interest of old users. – Narusan Jun 9 '17 at 22:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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