I just checked out a user that has access to the First Post review queue, and the amount of "No action Needed" sentences to crappy questions were something to be ashamed. I don't want to think that someone else is leaving all that crap without a single action (be comment, edit, vote, flagging, whatever!). I hope that new users learn how to use the review queue (I had access to the SO review queue before here, so I think is a good adition).

I proposed this in Jorge Castro's discussion question, but only guntbert commented a bit. I think is a good addition and also keep honing the reviewing skills of everybody (included myself that for 2 questions I had fallen victim of the roboreviewing).

  • Are you talking about review audits? Or are you talking about requiring that people complete some number of fake practice reviews before getting to access the real review queue. (That's what comes to mind from the word "auditioning," and it's an interesting idea...) Commented Sep 7, 2013 at 17:15
  • Yeah, why not implement them both. What I'm trying to accomplish is that we really "review" the new questions (as I said, sometimes I don't "review" properly a question and it escapes to me certain details).
    – Braiam
    Commented Sep 7, 2013 at 17:25

1 Answer 1


Rather than change the way the system works with practice reviews or review audits, or at least before we do something like that (or in addition to such measures), it might be best simply to ask for more information to be added to the review banner to explain when "No Action Needed" is and is not appropriate.

screenshot shown review explanation banner

Of course, what posts are appropriate to dismiss with No Action Needed is somewhat subjective. But there are some cases where clicking that button is pretty clearly right or pretty clearly wrong (which is what this meta question is about).

I think people might not always appreciate the difference between No Action Needed and Skip, and how Skip should be considered in a variety of circumstances where the action taken by the reviewer is incomplete in some way. Explaining Skip better (either together with No Action Needed, or at the bottom where it's mentioned now) might do a world of good.

  • 1
    You know what Jeff said about banners and such: People just don't read them. It may be actually more appropriate that they hit themself with a rock since we can't go behind their reviews checking again that they did good (is just not efficient). Also remember, that the audits only will keep the site sanity and there isn't almost any downside for the reviewer.
    – Braiam
    Commented Sep 7, 2013 at 18:22
  • @Braiam I suspect people read this one, since otherwise they wouldn't even know what review is or how to use it. But sometimes maybe that's the problem... Commented Sep 7, 2013 at 21:02

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