

nb this does not entail creating another review queue, it is reinventing the first post review queue. This proposal would mean there are less posts overall on review queues.

I've been thinking about the load of low quality and off topic posts and thought that a solution might be to not allow first time users, or even have a minimum rep benchmark to post freely.

So actually my proposal is not for first posts, but users under an optimal benchmark rep that is to be determined statistically. (though this algorithm can be discussed separately if the proposal makes it that far).

The idea is:

  1. There would be a minimum number of ok flags to make the post become visible, say 3 like the current triage.

  2. There would be an even less minimum number of flags to close it/delete it, this would mean poor quality posts spend less time in the review queue, say 2. Though I am not 100% convinced of the wisdom of this. The rationale behind this, is the number of tortured borderline questions that are triaged and make it to the ok status with an almost even vote.

  3. Once they are approved, they are not placed onto another queue, unless later flagged.

  4. If the post is rejected, the user receives a notification that directs them to the appropriate place in the help center.

  5. The number of iterations any single user has to do this is counted and can count towards a post ban, as do posting too many low quality posts So you got banned? No problem, just create a new account (or not?).

  6. In this proposal I suggest, rather than giving these posts a chance to be edited and improved, they are cleared from the site and the user has a chance to start from scratch, dependent upon point 5.

  7. Make it very clear in the terms and conditions, when a new member signs up or an anonymous user posts an answer, that these are the rules. (I know there are already similar features, but for completeness I'm adding this)

  8. The minimum rep for users to access this review queue would need to be set carefully, to assist with false negatives and not choke the queues. (which is a bit like saying water is wet). It could be possibly set to match the current close and open vote queues.

This would have these side effects:

  1. The low quality and closed review queues will be shorter.

  2. There would be less flags to manage.

  3. The first post queue would be longer.

  4. The total number of items in all review queues would be less, as all first posts are already reviewed and then many of these would not end up on the vote to close queue or low quality queue.

  5. The review queue would clear more quickly with less flags than the vote to close review queue.

  6. This would weed out the one off users who post inappropriately and spammers, saving the majority from the experience.

  7. In theory (though this would be linked to the rep benchmark), the questions that do get closed, will generally be more able to be edited to be reopened, as the user will have some experience of successfully using the site.

  8. There would be some false negatives, but the noise level on the site would improve immensely.

TLDR don't make posts visible from low or 0 rep/unknown users until they have been approved.

Related, but not duplicates:

This proposal is very similar, but I have taken out the gaming aspect and reputation rewards for reviewing, as this will lead to false positives, and proposed a different implementation.

Should we peer review questions before publishing them?

Why not peer review all new questions?


I guess sometimes it feels like scrolling the new questions is like scrolling a review queue, only the process of flagging questions from the front page takes longer than if they were already on a review queue, so it would then just be easier to find good questions to answer from the new questions feed.

  • Not a good Idea. It will kill time of both :- OPs and Mods. – SKD Oct 21 '15 at 10:51
  • 2
    Is the solution to long review queues really to add another review queue? – TZHX Oct 21 '15 at 10:57
  • Where would the approval happen? Your point The minimum rep for users to access this review queue suggested to me that you would be creating a new queue with he behaviour you want. I did read through it, yes. – TZHX Oct 21 '15 at 11:00
  • 2
    A radically changed queue with the same name is still a new queue. – TZHX Oct 21 '15 at 11:04
  • 1> If new users/users with less rep are always made to wait for review, don't you think it will waste their and reviewer's time? – SKD Oct 21 '15 at 11:08
  • 5
    What does this proposal address that isn't already trying to be covered in Triage and / or First Posts? What is the benefit of hiding posts for people to come across naturally who could handle it away in a review queue? – TZHX Oct 21 '15 at 11:09
  • 6> No chance to improve..? really? – SKD Oct 21 '15 at 11:10
  • 2
    That is clearly not the case. – TZHX Oct 21 '15 at 11:11
  • 1
    @Yvette Its not true always. Many newcomers post genuine questions/answers. Your idea will make them wait to make their post visible to others. – SKD Oct 21 '15 at 11:22
  • 1
    @SKD - "Many newcomers post genuine questions/answers." - So what? Genuine does not equate to Quality, and Question Quality has always been a core value. Interacting with Stack Overflow is a privilege, not a right. Privileges must be earned. Consider, mature software development release processes use the same flow. Software changes are not uploaded to production; rather they are staged and tested first. Yvette's suggestion uses the same model for questions. – jww Sep 23 '18 at 23:07

Noooo no no no.

  • Plenty of users post quality first posts. Pushing those into a review queue is counter-productive.
  • The amount of content posted by low (Say, <100) rep users is pretty darn large. There is no way all those posts can be reviewed. That queue will back up massively.
  • The "Make it perfect or start over" idea is horribly counter-productive. This will chase new users away.
  • "The total number of items in all review queues would be less" - This is extremely optimistic. (Read: incorrect). At the moment, not all first posts are sent to a review queue. With your suggestion, every single one would have to reviewed.
  • hm, I thought they were all reviewed... yep that would make the whole idea.. totally not viable. my bad. thanks. – Yvette Colomb Oct 21 '15 at 18:55

If I was a new user and knew my question will have to be worthy of upvotes (most are not, and people who usually downvote a question will also vote to not even display it mostly) to be even seen that would discourage me massively from posting anything.

Also low rep users submit a terrifying amount of questions, do you have any idea how many each experienced user would have to review each day to not have that back up to hell?

  • "If I was a new user and knew my question will have to be worthy of upvotes (most are not, and people who usually downvote a question will also vote to not even display it mostly) to be even seen that would discourage me massively from posting anything." Somehow this prospect doesn't sound bad to me. – Trilarion Jun 28 '16 at 12:29
  • @Trilarion This was a post from way back in my humble beginnings. Nowadays, I would probably agree with your statement. The second point of it still holds though :p – Magisch Jun 28 '16 at 12:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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