@rene I (down a bit) aluded to "being prevented from asking questions in the future" because questions weren't well-received. I didn't want to get too technically broad there because for that early-stage audience, it would be a little overwhelming.
3 downvotes, 5 upvotes... very controversial! Do I make a bad assumption here? Imply something incorrect? Please leave me a message downvoters! — Aaron Hall ♦5 mins ago
@AaronHall maybe the down voters don't understand why this would be practical to know. They assume GIT handles the editor and that is all there is to it.
also asking for the voters motivation is noise and should be flagged blah blah, welcoming and such ...
@TravisJ well, I understand how some people feel about that, I've felt that way before too, but I've found that when I'm looking for answers to questions I really appreciate it when I don't have to wade through a bunch of comments that are irrelevant to getting my answer...
I'm almost on the verge of advocating to keep the status quo as is, but I do see your point.
A few facts for context:
The Reviewer and Steward badges (for reviewing 250 and 1,000 tasks in a single queue, respectively) count towards moderator candidate scores in elections, meaning that the SE t...
An audit still chews up time and attention, shaving irreplaceable seconds from your life, leaving you that much closer to death.
The least we can do is increment a number in exchange for that precious gift.
@Shog9 I think that the question is asking for them to not count against a user's max reviews per day... allowing someone to review 20 actual posts rather than 20 - audits posts / day. I agree that incrementing the user's total review count is good... not sure if penalizing the review queue because it gave a user an audit instead of an actual review is good... that said, I'm not sure how many users actually review 20 posts per day.
I'm also not sure if there's a way to do both at the same time... counting them as reviews for the user's review history total count but not counting them as a review for the per day limit.
If the user could force review audits instead of actual reviews, I'd be concerned but if the average audits per 20 is 2-3 per day, it'd be a matter of luck (?) with the added potential negative side effect of getting review banned if you fail too many audits... so it seems like there's a balance to it.
Well, if there's a system preferred frequency, we could limit the number of "free" audit reviews per day to whatever that would be... so 1/10 would give them only two free per day max, so forcing them wouldn't gain much. For most users, it probably wouldn't matter... though it seems like adding a lot of complexity... but it has the potential of increasing the total reviews completed per day... though, if that were actually a goal, we could more easily increase the max/day/user instead...
But I don't think there's any plans for that, either, for various reasons.
@Shog9 @Catija If you look at my review history on Super User (or SO, I don't remember) in 2014, you'll find that there's a period of time where the only tasks I've reviewed are audits.
@Catija it's a 1 in 20 chance (randomized) by default. So over time, assuming you're not actively manipulating things, you'll get 1 audit for every 20 reviews.
So... if we wanted folks to have 20 non-audit reviews per queue, we could just put the cap at 21 reviews per day. No need to get clever.
I'm almost on the verge of advocating to keep the status quo as is, but I do see your point.
A few facts for context:
The Reviewer and Steward badges (for reviewing 250 and 1,000 tasks in a single queue, respectively) count towards moderator candidate scores in elections, meaning that the SE t...
An audit still chews up time and attention, shaving irreplaceable seconds from your life, leaving you that much closer to death.
The least we can do is increment a number in exchange for that precious gift.
