Before I start messing around with the codebase I'd rather see if the method we already have works. Adding more approvers has zero negative impact as long as their quality standards are fine. Worst case scenario in a month the situation is the same.
Posted under General
nonamethanks said:
Before I start messing around with the codebase I'd rather see if the method we already have works. Adding more approvers has zero negative impact as long as their quality standards are fine. Worst case scenario in a month the situation is the same.
You did promote four users 19 days ago. Two more a few days after that. And today three more.
At some point the whole community has approver status.
At this point, I see no reason to keep on going with finding solutions that actually work. The easiest way isn't the best one.
If you think those people aren't good enough to be approvers then that's one thing, but I've always maintained that anyone who has the eye to be an approver should be one and that's not something I am willing to compromise on, especially not at a time where the queue is imploding due to size.
nonamethanks said:
If you think those people aren't good enough to be approvers then that's one thing, but I've always maintained that anyone who has the eye to be an approver should be one and that's not something I am willing to compromise on, especially not at a time where the queue is imploding due to size.
When did I complain about the quality of these users? I didn't even look at their accounts, yet. I only saw that these promotions were made as a response to this topic. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that connection, especially when it was advised AGAINST promoting users to approver since it doesn't solve thhe issue presented. It does do nothing against the implosion of the mod queue.
But yeah, maybe adding that one user X will solve everything.
Provence said:
When did I complain about the quality of these users? I didn't even look at their accounts, yet. I only saw that these promotions were made as a response to this topic. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that connection, especially when it was advised AGAINST promoting users to approver since it doesn't solve thhe issue presented. It does do nothing against the implosion of the mod queue.
But yeah, maybe adding that one user X will solve everything.
He didn't say you were complaining about their quality, he was saying it would be one thing if that was your complaint. What he's saying is that he's not going to not promote people to Approver just because you, or anyone else, doesn't think it's a solution to the immediate problem. Those users deserved their promotions and they're going to get them regardless, because it does nothing to exacerbate the existing problem.
You could consider a multi-pronged approach: more approvers and reduce the threshold for becoming an unrestricted user. This reduces workload from both ends.
I agree that anyone who demonstrates a good eye should be allowed to approve. There isn't any significant harm in it, abuse or bad taste would quickly be noticed.
What percentage of users really hit the upload limit regularly? Unless it is reduced to 1-3 on a wide scale (which has other problems), I can't imagine a decreased limit would have a significant effect, but maybe I am mistaken.
1123581321345589144 said:
You could consider a multi-pronged approach: more approvers and reduce the threshold for becoming an unrestricted user. This reduces workload from both ends.
I promote people when I feel confident that they're not going to start uploading a wildly different level of quality from their usual once they become unrestricted. There's no formal "threshold" for this, it's just a gut feeling. It's simply the answer to "can I trust this person not to start dumping hundreds of posts of similar quality as their deleted uploads the moment I press the promote button?"
It's typically around 800-1000 posts because that's the sweet spot of "they've been here long enough and I can compare their growth and see that they learned not to post bad stuff", but I've promoted people at lower post counts like 600 or 400 or even lower before, if I could tell their quality was consistent and they weren't going to start uploading bad stuff out of the blue.
Unfortunately, to trust someone in 99% of the cases you need a history of their posting.
Maybe we could give people the benefit of the doubt earlier, but what happens if someone then starts uploading a lot of garbage? Do we just assume everyone lower than a certain percentage of deleted uploads is good to go unless they start uploading bad posts? Who's going to go back and flag all their garbage once they're demoted?
I would even be willing to consider this option if not for the fact that most people who go past a certain threshold (2-3% deleted) already almost always end up getting promoted before 1k posts nowadays, and those who don't are a very rare exception that would not affect the overall queue size.
What percentage of users really hit the upload limit regularly? Unless it is reduced to 1-3 on a wide scale (which has other problems), I can't imagine a decreased limit would have a significant effect, but maybe I am mistaken.
Few people consistently hit the max amount of posts, most people end up getting promoted before then or have a high percentage of deleted and so their upload slots are <25ish. The simple explanation is that our uploads have grown exponentially in recent years. Just look at these graphs:
It's not just the same amount of people uploading more, or more people uploading the same amount. It's a lot more people uploading a lot more than before.
Updated