7

The repercussion of the latest changes introduced to the network (See Can we raise the bar for reputation for late answers to enter the review queue?) on our main site is reflected in the deleted answer on the link (somebody from an SE site about English language posted it). My Late Answers queue shot up to 573 when normally I keep it under 50.

But that's not really the problem here since I can continue to review the queue. The problem is I'm seeing answers dated back to 2011, 2012 and 2013 (I'm yet to find one from 2010) and as expected, some (may be more; may be less) definitely needs editing.

If I start editing them then I would end up showing all those old questions in the Active questions list. This is the issue.

  • I risk pushing the new or the recently answered questions. It is more risky because we are not a large site so every entry counts. By replacing those entries from first or second page, for users with recent answers, I'm taking away their chance of earning points and getting their answers reviewed by peers without the formal process of "Review queue".
  • In such scenario, because the now active questions are old, people may not be interested in even opening the link let alone seeing whether the question needs good answer or not. A lot of those questions by now already have accepted or considerably upvoted answers so I don't see much merit for people having interest in a question which is both old as well as have an accepted answer.

This definitely isn't a long time issue since once reviewers are done with reviewing those old answers, things would and should look normal.

But I definitely need to know, should I go on editing those answers and end up pushing back the new or any recently answered question?

  • There is always an approach of editing those old questions following an interval, say edit 3 old answers now, then come back in 5-10 hours and edit 3 old answers again and continue the cycle. That seems a long process to me. – Firelord Sep 30 '15 at 10:32
  • 1
    In this particular case, I'd edit if it really needs to be edited, and if it's considered useful (upvoted/answered). Other than that, if it's only a minor typo, or having zero score, I'd just "looks OK" (or downvote/comment/flag/vote). At least it will prevent bumping ~20 questions to active list. (Yeah, it seems unfair to those posts, but I have a reason doing this at this particular event). However, if you want to edit the post, I'd encourage to also edit other posts in the same thread to prevent multiple bumping in the future. – Andrew T. Sep 30 '15 at 10:55
  • @AndrewT. Thanks. I'm following a part of your strategy. I'm simply skipping the answers which doesn't need an edit so as to save myself the review count (the barrier of 20) but I'm editing those which genuinely needs an edit while making sure that none of the other answers on the same page remains in bad shape. If I continue to go slow then the new answers would continue to pile up and I would become overwhelm by the sheer number of answers in queue at some point. Too bad! I think somebody at SE is taking care of this old stuff mess and may be it will be gone soon, automatically. – Firelord Sep 30 '15 at 18:44
3

The same process should be taken as with any time we've done a tag cleanup — edit slowly. Just do a few at a time, take a break, and come back later. Resist the urge to the queue to zero immediately :P

  • LOL, the guys at U&L couldn't control the urge and burned the queue under a day. – Firelord Sep 30 '15 at 16:07
  • Hmm, interesting. I have not seen SE encourage such flooding before, but there is something to be said for getting it done quick. – Matthew Read Sep 30 '15 at 16:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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