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.