Return to Answer

The existing question sweeps do enough and your alterations won't fix the review problem.

The post you mention, "asking not to focus efforts on closing old questions", was (and remains) a frustration that old answered things end up on the review queue, that people should be more vigilant about how they review and also that the review system itself should be prioritising today's junk over yesterday's so that everything new gets eyes-on and it never turns into yesterday's junk.

While shenanigans like this keeps happening, I'm going to be grumpy about this. I know your post isn't directly about this so I'll be quick:

• One user finds it (I can't imagine why, there are no recent events I can see) and votes to close
• That generated a review task that sucks in 7 more people resulting in a 4/3 split to close (meaning the original stood).
• This left it on the close queue and 4 more people closed it
• Then one user and a mod re-opened.

14 separate people involved just to preside over a 3-year old, extremely answered question.

Getting back on topic, your solution is not remedy to the problem described above, you're just lowering the amount of fuel. We could keep adjusting the gearing on this until we just have a bot that deletes everything 2 hours after it's posted unless it has a +10 answer. There'll be a lot less crap in the review queue, that's for sure.

So ignore the review issues. They're a problem but they aren't this problem.
Our princess is in another castle.

Unlike Shog's suggestion, you're suggesting we delete a number of questions that have had no votes whatsoever. I think you summarised the ethos quite well in this —trimmed by me— comment:

Any answer not upvoted is potentially bad at the same time is potentially good, but that doesn't mean we should preserve all of them, since most are based on bad questions

I'm just not sure automatically drawing lines around what is potentially good or not is the right solution to any of our various competing problems. You might as well start every question at -1 instead of zero.

And as has already been mentioned late answering isn't common but we have over a thousand questions that got their sole ≥0-scoring answer after 90 days. You'd be condemning the next thousand to just being deleted or needing to re-ask their question. This aspect is actually bigger (questions with more than one answer but the latest >90day one is the best) but my SQL-fu isn't strong enough today.

I'd much rather we fix some of the ultra-wasteful time sinks with a view to reinvesting that back into making sure zero-vote posts get more eyes.

The existing question sweeps do enough and your alterations won't fix the review problem.

The post you mention, "asking not to focus efforts on closing old questions", was (and remains) a frustration that old answered things end up on the review queue, that people should be more vigilant about how they review and also that the review system itself should be prioritising today's junk over yesterday's so that everything new gets eyes-on and it never turns into yesterday's junk.

While shenanigans like this keeps happening, I'm going to be grumpy about this. I know your post isn't directly about this so I'll be quick:

• One user finds it (I can't imagine why, there are no recent events I can see) and votes to close
• That generated a review task that sucks in 7 more people resulting in a 4/3 split to close (meaning the original stood).
• This left it on the close queue and 4 more people closed it
• Then one user and a mod re-opened.

14 separate people involved just to preside over a 3-year old, extremely answered question.

Getting back on topic, your solution is not remedy to the problem described above, you're just lowering the amount of fuel. We could keep adjusting the gearing on this until we just have a bot that deletes everything 2 hours after it's posted unless it has a +10 answer. There'll be a lot less crap in the review queue, that's for sure.

So ignore the review issues. They're a problem but they aren't this problem.
Our princess is in another castle.

Unlike Shog's suggestion, you're suggesting we delete a number of questions that have had no votes whatsoever. I think you summarised the ethos quite well in this —trimmed by me— comment:

Any answer not upvoted is potentially bad at the same time is potentially good, but that doesn't mean we should preserve all of them, since most are based on bad questions

I'm just not sure automatically drawing lines around what is potentially good or not is the right solution to any of our various competing problems. You might as well start every question at -1 instead of zero.

And as has already been mentioned late answering isn't common but we have over a thousand questions that got their sole ≥0-scoring answer after 90 days. You'd be condemning the next thousand to just being deleted or needing to re-ask their question. This aspect is actually bigger (questions with more than one answer but the latest >90day one is the best) but my SQL-fu isn't strong enough today.

I'd much rather we fix some of the ultra-wasteful time sinks with a view to reinvesting that back into making sure zero-vote posts get more eyes.

The existing question sweeps do enough and your alterations won't fix the review problem.

The post you mention, "asking not to focus efforts on closing old questions", was (and remains) a frustration that old answered things end up on the review queue, that people should be more vigilant about how they review and also that the review system itself should be prioritising today's junk over yesterday's so that everything new gets eyes-on and it never turns into yesterday's junk.

While shenanigans like this keeps happening, I'm going to be grumpy about this. I know your post isn't directly about this so I'll be quick:

• One user finds it (I can't imagine why, there are no recent events I can see) and votes to close
• That generated a review task that sucks in 7 more people resulting in a 4/3 split to close (meaning the original stood).
• This left it on the close queue and 4 more people closed it
• Then one user and a mod re-opened.

14 separate people involved just to preside over a 3-year old, extremely answered question.

Getting back on topic, your solution is not remedy to the problem described above, you're just lowering the amount of fuel. We could keep adjusting the gearing on this until we just have a bot that deletes everything 2 hours after it's posted unless it has a +10 answer. There'll be a lot less crap in the review queue, that's for sure.

So ignore the review issues. They're a problem but they aren't this problem.
Our princess is in another castle.

Unlike Shog's suggestion, you're suggesting we delete a number of questions that have had no votes whatsoever. I think you summarised the ethos quite well in this —trimmed by me— comment:

Any answer not upvoted is potentially bad at the same time is potentially good, but that doesn't mean we should preserve all of them, since most are based on bad questions

I'm just not sure automatically drawing lines around what is potentially good or not is the right solution to any of our various competing problems. You might as well start every question at -1 instead of zero.

And as has already been mentioned late answering isn't common but we have over a thousand questions that got their sole ≥0-scoring answer after 90 days. You'd be condemning the next thousand to just being deleted or needing to re-ask their question. This aspect is actually bigger (questions with more than one answer but the latest >90day one is the best) but my SQL-fu isn't strong enough today.

I'd much rather we fix some of the ultra-wasteful time sinks with a view to reinvesting that back into making sure zero-vote posts get more eyes.

The existing question sweeps do enough and your alterations won't fix the review problem.

The post you mention, "asking not to focus efforts on closing old questions", was (and remains) a frustration that old answered things end up on the review queue, that people should be more vigilant about how they review and also that the review system itself should be prioritising today's junk over yesterday's so that everything new gets eyes-on and it never turns into yesterday's junk.

While shenanigans like this keeps happening, I'm going to be grumpy about this. I know your post isn't directly about this so I'll be quick:

• One user finds it (I can't imagine why, there are no recent events I can see) and votes to close
• That generated a review task that sucks in 7 more people resulting in a 4/3 split to close (meaning the original stood).
• This left it on the close queue and 4 more people closed it
• Then one user and a mod re-opened.

14 separate people involved just to preside over a 3-year old, extremely answered question.

Getting back on topic, your solution is not remedy to the problem described above, you're just lowering the amount of fuel. We could keep adjusting the gearing on this until we just have a bot that deletes everything 2 hours after it's posted unless it has a +10 answer. There'll be a lot less crap in the review queue, that's for sure.

So ignore the review issues. They're a problem but they aren't this problem.
Our princess is in another castle.

Unlike Shog's suggestion, you're suggesting we delete a number of questions that have had no votes whatsoever. I think you summarised the ethos quite well in this —trimmed by me— comment:

Any answer not upvoted is potentially bad at the same time is potentially good, but that doesn't mean we should preserve all of them, since most are based on bad questions

I'm just not sure automatically drawing lines around what is potentially good or not is the right solution to any of our various competing problems. You might as well start every question at -1 instead of zero.

And as has already been mentioned late answering isn't common but we have over a thousand questions that got their sole ≥0-scoring answer after 90 days. You'd be condemning the next thousand to just being deleted or needing to re-ask their question. This aspect is actually bigger (questions with more than one answer but the latest >90day one is the best) but my SQL-fu isn't strong enough today.

I'd much rather we fix some of the ultra-wasteful time sinks with a view to reinvesting that back into making sure zero-vote posts get more eyes.