Only one note here...

We’d also like to add more useful, robust filtering options on all queues. Right now, the filter function is difficult to discover. We want to make this feature more noticeable and add queue-specific options. For example, you will be able to filter by your Watched Tags and sort tasks that are soon to expire out of each queue.

This is good, but... It won't be enough. The most effective reviewers are people who are invested in the topic - and they're overwhelmingly browsing questions in relevant tags, not haunting review. We identified this back in 2013, built a system to capitalize on it in 2014, and... then had to turn it off in 2015. It'd make a great tie-in with your "my tasks" proposal...

Put the entrypoint to this in front of the folks who care the most - those who are already taking care of their tags!

Review suspensions - clarity for users and moderators

• As a user, it's useful to know if you've been review banned, even if you aren't frequently checking the review queues to see the warning there.
• As a moderator, it's useful to know whether a user is currently review banned, and also whether they've been review banned in the past (and why, and for how long).

Review bans are pretty much like suspensions in many ways, except that they don't block access to all site functionalities but only one specific subset. Can we treat them more like suspensions in terms of informing people too? People here covering both users and moderators. I suggest:

1. Review suspension to send an automatic notification to the suspendee. Rather like mod messages accompanying suspensions, but there's no need to introduce a special new message system for it. Just a notification in the user's inbox saying "you have been temporarily blocked from reviewing" with a link to the review page where they can see the full ban message and reason.
2. Review suspension to add an automatic annotation on the suspendee's account. As a moderator, when I review-ban a user, I need to annotate their account separately. This is useful both for my fellow moderators to see at a glance what I've done and why, and for any moderators in the future to see at a glance how often this user has been review-banned before, and when, and why, and for how long. Would it be possible to automatically annotate the user's account, maybe with a short note "review banned for X days: ..." followed by the same review-ban message that the user sees when they visit the review page.

Suspension of privileges

From the screenshot you provided, it seems like you intend to hide the entire review page from suspended users. I think we should still allow review-suspended users to see the header menu (at least) for reviews... we don't need to hide everything review-related from them, we just don't want them to have the ability to perform reviews.

In some cases, it can be useful for even a review-suspended user to view a pending or completed review item for other reasons, especially if we want them to be able to learn. Some people learn by looking through completed reviews to see how other users are reviewing.

New features

I plan on bringing these up in a UX interview soon, but I'll mention them here as well:

1. Please let us filter tags to ignore. We can filter by specific tags if we want, and that's great, but I'd really, really love to never see a question tagged with haskell in the close vote queue (I picked that tag as a random example; nothing against Haskell) if I so choose.

2. Please let us upvote and downvote posts from all review queues. We can in some, but can't in others. This is inconsistent and I often have to click through to the main view of a question from the queue in order to downvote it.

3. It would be nice to be able to favorite (or follow) questions from the review queue as well for certain interesting review items or items we want to make sure we follow up on later.

So, you say this in the main post...

Please let us know if there are other Review Queue issues you’d like to see addressed as well.

...and this is a suggestion related to the "My Tasks" feature, so I figured I'd stick it here.

Way, way, back in 2014, there was a discussion on how to empower silver tag badge holders. The most highly upvoted answer there suggests giving silver tag-badge holders a few extra close votes per day in their tag.

This would help allow people to handle more close reviews and help empty the queue.

This would tie in well with the "My Tasks" feature, I feel. You're already sorting reviews based on your favorite tags - it isn't too much of a stretch, IMO, to put in something here for people with silver+ tag badges to take care of.

...it's a bit tangential, true, but something to consider in relation to the "My Tasks", I think.

Speaking about badges, the current queues have a (not too easy to discover) tooltip for badge progress: it is shown when hovering over your total number of reviews in the queue.

I don't see that number anywhere in the screenshots – is that intentional? (Since there is a progress bar for daily reviews.) Hiding it could have the effect of reducing robo-reviewing, which is a real problem on some sites but almost non-existent on other sites which really could use more reviewing activity.

Thank you for focusing on the filtering system. From what I can see, it's the most under-used feature of the current system, and it could really use some attention. In particular:

Allow users to save filters

Have the existing filters way up front, together with the button for creating a new one. Make it easy for me to jump straight into the filtering modes where I am most useful, and to switch to the next such mode once I'm done with the first one.

Pre-set dupehammer filters for users with gold tag badges

or at least offer it as a suggestion. If I have a gold tag badge and you've given me a dupehammer for it, presumably it's because you trust my judgement about duplicates on that tag, so by extension you think that this is where my reviews would be most solid and most impactful. Dupehammer reviews, if presented early, count by 4x or even 5x, and they're a great way to get a duplicates queue out of the way so other users can focus on trickier reviews. Let's focus this attention where it counts the most!

Use closing history (and not just answer activity) when suggesting filters

On my main site, I rarely answer homework questions, but they make a large proportion of the questions I vote to close. (The community consensus is that the tag is on-topic but with clear guidelines on what is allowed, and many new users post off-topic questions, which I consider to be quite harmful to the site.) While there is a correlation between the tags where I'm active answering and the tags where I feel comfortable casting close votes, that correlation is insufficient to predict my future voting behaviour -- you need to look at my past closure voting history to give the best predictions.

If you can, point me to questions that should have been tagged tag

In addition to the above: few new-user off-topic homework questions get tagged homework by their authors, and this takes time to add. But I'm willing to put some money down that if you throw some data science at it, a reasonably high percentage of new-user questions tagged, say, newtonian-mechanics will end up closed and tagged as homework. Give me a filter for those, please.

Allow me to filter on off-topic sub-reason

Same as above. Reviewing for closure requires different mindsets depending on why the questions were marked as off-topic, and you already have the data to make that separation.

Regarding the review bans, consider adding a feature that allows moderators to mark single reviews as bad and then automatically provide guidance based on this (and automatically issue review bans if problems repeat). This would considerably streamline manual review bans and provide guidance to the affected reviewers.

I elaborated this in more detail in a separate feature request.

My Tasks is a curated experience that’s currently based on your Watched Tags

The intention sounds very good. However, I have an issue with this and it's that I don't use Watched Tags like you assume I do. I really hope I'm speaking for more than myself here but my workflow isn't to add what I want to Watched Tags and then look at the curated home page. I find that the home page is not sufficiently well tailored. It's also hard to track for me.

What I do is I follow the tags I want as custom filters and I have Watched Tags as an extra layer on top of the custom filter. So, they don't represent well what I'm actually after - some of them are for things I don't want.

Here is an example: there are a lot of questions tagged as Java and JavaScript when the author only needs only one or the other. So, I have a custom filter which includes JavaScript and then Java as a Watched Tag. Thus, when a question shows up with both, it's highlighted, and I check if the tagging is appropriate and perhaps remove one of the tags, if needed.

And here is how that looks:

I have most of my activity on the JavaScript tag, yet the proposed system will give me a lot of Java questions to look at.

The front page is already bad at this. The Interesting tab supposedly uses my Watched Tags to determine what to show me but I never figured out how it does that and it seems to be consistently wrong.

Here is the state right now. I've highlighted four items that are completely out of the left field for me:

1. Nope.

• python I don't care about Python. I've very limited experience with the language. My only post on the tag is on a question that was tagged both JavaScript and Python because the author was asking how to do something similar to Python but in JavaScript.
• concatenation string-concatenation - I don't consider myself some sort of expert or even interested in either of these fields. They are things that I happen to do. I only have a single answer on a question that has the last tag.

2. asp.net-core and kestrel - I have basically no experience with ASP.NET-Core, nor with Kestrel. I know they exist but I can't really even tell you their exact functionality. I've never posted on anything with either of those tags. To the best of my knowledge, I've not interacted with posts on these tags - no comments, votes, nor anything. Why is that question expected to be interesting is beyond me.
3. pytorch dataloader the former is probably related to Python but I only assume so based on the Py prefix. I don't really know either of these things. Never really interacted with these either. Why would I be interested in the question?
4. owl ontology protege I have literally no clue what any of those three tags is. They may as well read "Gobbledygook", "Blah", and "Twaddle".

So, there you go - that's my experience with the Watched Tags - they are sort of used but also irrelevant results are thrown in. Hence why I don't use Watched Tags for "things I'm interested in" - it doesn't seem to work that way.

If Watched Tags are to be used for review filtering then it seems it would be mutually exclusive with what I do. I can either

• maintain Watched Tags that I do want but lose the benefit of using them alongside custom filters, since that would overlap.

or

• forfeit using the Watched Tags for review queues and still have a list of things I'm not necessarily interested in.

P.S. Let me pre-emptively link to this because it's applicable:

One of current criteria involved in triggering review suspension is blatantly wrong and needs to be corrected.

Respective feature requests are hanging ignored for many years despite strong community support:

• at MSE: Clicking "Add comment" fails review audit (posted 7 years ago, score 106: +108/-2)
• at MSO: Review audit failed after just clicking "add comment" (posted 6 years ago, score 294: +296/-2)

Criteria that needs correction is failing "known good" audit when user attempts to add a comment.

This criteria contradicts the very intent of the audits - these are supposed to catch reviewers who aren't paying attention, but comments indicate exactly the opposite - that user has reasonably carefully read the post.

Given above, criteria must change to opposite - audit should pass with a message like: "Attempt to comment demonstrates that you pay attention while reviewing. Congratulations, you passed this audit."

^{When exactly to pass such an audit, I don't have strong opinion on that. Triggering pass immediately when user clicks "add comment" link (without even attempting to actually write it) would be simpler to implement and quite smooth but it opens a risk of abusing this as a low effort check to discover the audit.}

^{Passing audit after user has already written text in comment box and tries to add it looks more reliable than above, but it may cause complaints in cases when users spend considerable effort preparing comment, only to discover that system swallowed it without a trace. To decrease such friction system could actually add comments to non-deleted audit posts (and this would complicate implementation a bit).}

Regarding review suspensions:

According to this post and several other comments I have read by some Stack Overflow moderators, one major problem with the current review ban/suspension system is, that many users don't notice the ban before it expires.

Maybe I misunderstand something, but it seems, that while your suggestion currently covers making these suspensions more noticeable when they are active, they do hide the notice on the review page and the inbox notification upon expiration.

To solve the other problem, too, I'd suggest the following:

• Every review suspension has probably some kind of a unique ID in the database.
• There'll be a new link of the form /review/suspensions/id, which will permanently show the notice and start and end date of the suspension to the user and moderators.
• This page will be linked in the notification. There'll be some visible notice, whether the ban is still active or not.

You guys need to get some talented UI/UX designers on this task, not more programmer types. Programmers tend to love rules and when you are holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The problem with the review queues is that it's a bunch of rules in search of a solution.

You see a problem and think, "Oh, we need a new rule to address that". So you put a new rule in place, but there are still problems so you make another rule and another, and you end up with a labyrinthine mess of rules that were decided by committee. You tell yourselves, "Well, we did some user research so our solution is justified". But you'll never solve the issue that way because you keep coming at it from a creator's perspective, from a programmer's perspective.

Instead, you need to come at it from the user's perspective. Not the sort of user like yourselves who already know the site well. And not just a sampling of users for data analysis to decide what new rules to create. You need a visionary designer's mentality to crack this nut. Someone who doesn't get mired in details and data as programmers often do. You need a high-level thinker who can take a huge step back, get a big-picture view of the entire situation, and come at this with a whole new philosophy that will inform your efforts.

I don't know if you have such people at your disposal, and admittedly there are not many people like that in the world. I think it's likely that Stack Overflow is full of programmer types, and that's probably the kind of people who are in a position to make changes. That much is evident in the design of the review queues and also in numerous other mechanisms throughout the site.

At the most fundamental level, this is the reason why Stack Overflow creates so many frustrating experiences for people, especially those who don't think like a machine. The programmer mentality is evident in the site's design. In a metaphorical sense, the site's user experience feels much like trying to program a computer. Which for many beginners is a horribly painful experience. Computers are fundamentally anti-human and unfriendly. In the words of Joseph Campbell:

Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.

Machines may be that way, but the UI/UX of a website doesn't need to and shouldn't be that way. It can be a friendly, humanizing experience if you know how to build it like that. But you have to approach the problem like a master UI/UX designer, not like a master programmer.

Provide a confirmation "dupe hammer" to silver tag badge holders, so if they confirm a duplicate in the review queue, the question is closed without needing a 3 person to confirm it.

Be default sort the review tasks, so the tasks that are closest to completion come first. Remember to take "dupe hammer" into account with this sorting.

Exclude tasks for question that have had few recent views unless it for duplicate.

In addition to using the filter tags, consider using tag badges (or stats) to sort the review tasks.

Maybe some AI can be trained to predict when a user will skip a task, and don't show tasks the user is likely to skip.

Option to get an alert if a question voting to close for duplicate is edited.