Edit - Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Rev

I think "network-wide status" could use some further fleshing out (what reputation level? reputation on any single site? or sum of reputation across all sites? if sum, does that exclude the association bonus?). And how do you think those qualities correlate to knowing how to do each review queue you are referring to on each site? Ex. sites have community-specific close-reasons. Do you think knowing some communities' specific close reasons means understanding others (rhetorical question). This is relevant for first-questions and close-vote and re-open-vote queues.
– starball
Commented Nov 30, 2022 at 20:54
Not all edits are spelling and grammar. Edits can involve subject-matter expertise. On SO. I only have subject-matter knowledge in a few tags. How much less so do I have expertise/knowledge in topics of various other sites!
– starball
Commented Nov 30, 2022 at 20:55
You start by saying "accessing specific review queues on certain authorized sites", but which review queues and which sites? I imaging you have a motivating scenario in mind that isn't yet stated in your proposal post. Can you state it and clarify on those points?
– starball
Commented Nov 30, 2022 at 20:56
2

@starball Not really, as this is meant to be a generic description of the role: any site could potentially need help with any queue. As for the correlation: when in doubt, the Reviewer can always skip an item. And even moderators have misunderstandings of what's on- or off-topic at times. A Reviewer's vote would not have more authority, so multiple votes are still needed.
– Joachim
Commented Nov 30, 2022 at 21:17
If I understand correctly, the motivating problem statement is that some sites have very full queues. Ex. SO's first questions and close-vote queues. What I'm curious about is why you think this is the solution (assuming that is what you think). What alternatives have you considered? Why not alternative approaches such as reducing the number of reviews needed per item on high-volume queues? Or increasing each reviewer's review cap? Or lowering the rep threshold to access those queues? Or using some other same-site qualification such as number of approved edits or helpful flags?
– starball
Commented Dec 1, 2022 at 0:19
Another question I have: Do you have numbers on the demand?: How many moderators/reviewers do you know that have expressed a desire for help from contributors from other sites? How many contributors do you know that have expressed a desire to help on other sites? If there's no evidence of demand from either side, then it could very well be that nobody or unjustifiably few people use this capability if implemented.
– starball
Commented Dec 1, 2022 at 0:21

Add a comment |

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
indent code by 4 spaces
backtick escapes `like _so_`
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »