For anyone finding this later: the short answer on per-category review queue is that it depends on one thing, and the rest of the thread is people identifying which thing.
0 likes 1mo
Meta · Feature requests · continued
Request: a per-category review queue posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Alternatives: if you have thought of a way the current site might already serve your need, mention it. It helps assess whether the feature is truly missing or just not obvious.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
0 likes 1mo
Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised.
20 likes 1mo
Nardone, post #25: Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised. I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more. Go to post
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
On post #61 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Adding the boring version of per-category review queue, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.
0 likes 30d
Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting.
Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.
28 likes 30d
a.adeyemi, post #34: Second-hand on per-category review queue, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself. Go to post
That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.
j.petrov, post #19: Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it. Go to post
I would use that constantly. The objection is presumably that it is data the site then has to hold and protect for no benefit to anyone else.
t.varga, post #26: Post #25 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. Request with the use case rather than the feature. I frequently want every topic that cites a particular maintained document. At the moment I can find the document from the topic and not the reverse. I checked the source rather than the summary, and they… Go to post
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Post #68 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Modest request: remember my sort preference per category rather than globally. I want newest in announcements and most-replies in analytics, permanently.
Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.
21 likes 28d
Tamburello, post #21: Modest request: remember my sort preference per category rather than globally. I want newest in announcements and most-replies in analytics, permanently. That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close. Go to post
What I can speak to on per-category review queue is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.
week_three, post #37: Post #35 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. Request from the analytics side: allow a table in a post to be marked as data rather than layout, so it can be copied without the formatting. Half the tables here are worth pasting into a spreadsheet. The short answer was in the first line; everything after… Go to post
Deprecation requests: if you think a feature should be removed or changed, that is also a request. Explain why you think it would improve the site.
Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first.
Post #72 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Request with the use case rather than the feature. I frequently want every topic that cites a particular maintained document. At the moment I can find the document from the topic and not the reverse.
I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.
21 likes 26d
Agreed on all of that, and I have nothing to add to it.
0 likes 26d
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.
Coming back to post #73, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
That reframing is better than the original request and staff would consider it. Which is a good illustration of why these belong in public: the first version would have been declined and the third is worth building.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
6 likes 25d
Post #76 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Adding a reference point for per-category review queue. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
15 likes 25d
The failure mode on per-category review queue is boring rather than dramatic. It is almost always the step everyone assumes was done correctly because it is too simple to get wrong.
30 likes 24d
This follows post #76 rather than contradicting it.
Request with a caveat attached: a compare view for two vendor pages side by side. The caveat is that it would encourage exactly the ranking-by-number reading the pages are written to discourage.
0 likes 24d
Nardone, post #25: Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised. I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more. Go to post
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
0 likes 23d
resistance_first, post #58: Where the per-category review queue reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for. Go to post
Where I would push back on the per-category review queue consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
This follows post #83 rather than contradicting it.
Small methodological point on per-category review queue: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
25 likes 21d
preregistered, post #52: On post #48 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification. Use case: explain why you think the feature would help. "I would use this to..." makes the request concrete. Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki. Go to post
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.
Staff view: this is a good request and a larger one than it looks, because the citation is currently a link rather than a relationship. Recording it properly is the work, displaying it is trivial.
A weak preference rather than a position.
c.dahlberg, post #13: This follows post #10 rather than contradicting it. The practical version of per-category review queue is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached. Go to post
Request that would help newcomers more than regulars: show the subcategory description on hover in the category list. The names are terse and the descriptions are good.
One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.