Timeline for answer to What’s Next for Curation by Thingamabobs
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| yesterday | comment | added | peterh | @user1937198 Beside that, what we have here, is more than a decade long ossified bad custom. It is also quite vehemently defended by the majority of the meta contributors, the company partly believes them, and in many aspects they seem to be stronger even as the CMs. How could you fight it with some induvidual flags? It is too strong, there is no easy way to deal with it. Even that I can do what I do now, is possible only because they have already killed the site, and it is risky even now, I can be blocked any time for anything (like "insulting comments" like last time). | |
| yesterday | comment | added | peterh |
@user1937198 They will say, "I have already seen <anything> in the post, this is why I could decide in just 2 seconds". Beside that, when the reviewer opened the review entity, is not registered anywhere in public form, although it is available in the SE server log. Only the timestamps of their consecutive review decisions are visible, which is a much weaker proof. It is not enough if I know, I see a fake robo-closer "reviewer", what is the majority of them, I must give proof. Not even the mods see the strong proofs, it is available only in the server logs.
|
|
| yesterday | comment | added | user1937198 | @peterh It would be an interesting experiment to put a higher rate limit on how often users are allowed to vote to close in the queue. Because with reasonable flows, expecting people to vote no more than once every 30s to a minute shouldn't be disruptive, but it would be a major issue to roboreviewers. (And maybe also a mod flag off consistently low review times?) | |
| 2 days ago | history | edited | EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| 2 days ago | history | edited | Weijun Zhou | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| 2 days ago | comment | added | peterh | "Supporting smaller sites": majority of the VtC voters do not even know them, they also do not understand why they should be migrated instead closed-deleted. Question migration is very hard here, practically impossible, there was never clear explanation for that. An unthinkable amoung of content, together with their contributors, were lost, while migration could have saved them, and no one cared for it. | |
| 2 days ago | comment | added | peterh | The overwhelming majority of the VtC review queue is for closure, and also the voting times clearly show, the reviewer had simply no time to make a well-reasoned decision. It is not a decision process, it is a race to cast the most possible close votes without failed audits; it should not be so, but it is so. Recognizing it, it is clear, something must happen, unfortunately. | |
| Feb 27 at 4:55 | history | answered | Thingamabobs | CC BY-SA 4.0 |