1

When visiting another user's profile (Activity -> all actions), I am able to view the "reviews" section and also the decisions that they took on each item.

The below screenshot is taken from Stack Overflow, but I have verified that the same happens on Meta Stack Exchange also.

Enter image description here

Even more worrying is that I am able to click on the links (arrow marked in the above screenshot) and also see how the whole review went about and what actions were taken by other users who reviewed the same post.

Enter image description here

I am not sure if this is an intended feature and think it is definitely not correct for me to be able to see another person's review actions.

Improve this question
13
  • 5
    The big question: WHY NOT?
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:28
  • I don't think it serves any purpose and moreover review decisions are meant to be confidential and not shown to others. It just doesn't sound right.
    – Harry
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:31
  • 2
    But rather, when the community can see what a person did, then the decisions would be more "self-sustained". This way the community will be able to judge them, if necessary. How do you think robo-reviewing is spotted?
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:32
  • 4
    This is not unintentional. It's very much intended that this information is public. If you would feel uncomfortable taking a particular moderation action, knowing that others will be able to see what it is, then odds are you shouldn't be taking that particular moderation action.
    – Servy
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:32
  • @MARamezani: I for one, do not wish someone's opinion to change weather I reject or approve their edit. In doing so could only lead to 'revenge' downvoting when someone's edit is reviewed and rejected. It's hard enough getting people to review, and less will of fear that they'll get downvoted on other questions/answers if the 'editor' doesn't get their way. I can safely say, noone has said 'thank you' for approving an edit, but I'm sure they'll complain if their edit is 'rejected', and have a name.
    – jbutler483
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:35
  • 2
    @jbutler483 There aren't problems getting people to review edits. In fact, there are a lot more people trying to review edits than are actually needed to handle the edits that get suggested.
    – Servy
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:37
  • 1
    @jbutler483 The fact of being able to publicly see who reviewed what is way more beneficial than isn't. Revenge downvoting is fought, is rare, and usually ends up with no harm to the reviewer.
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:39
  • @Servy: And yet there are always edits to be reviewed, as are other review queues?
    – jbutler483
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:39
  • @MARamezani: Pray tell, how is it beneficial? I can name but a few reasons not to include it, but I'm struggling to think of any positives.
    – jbutler483
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:40
  • @jbutler483 But there are never a lot of pending edits, they always get cleared out before building up very much. That's a sign that there are plenty of reviewers, not a lack of them. Trust me, I Know what i looks like when there is a lack of reviewers. There was a time when the queue was regularly maxed out. As for the other queues, none of the other queues make it very easy to find (or for many users, even know that there is) the review page from the post in question, so retaliation just isn't really a thing.
    – Servy
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:42
  • 1
    @jbutler483 Are you prone to making "deliberate mistakes" when you're watched or when you're alone?
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:45
  • It allows those who are setting out to learn what reviewing means to see what more experienced reviewers have done.
    – Robert Longson
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:45
  • @RobertLongson: That (IMHO) is quite a weak argument I'm afraid. There are plenty of 'tutorials' and hints about what you're to do when reviewing.
    – jbutler483
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:49

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
12

This is what true community moderation does. We can all see your reviews, and you can see mine.

You can ping me in chat, or flag me, because of bad behavior related to reviewing, answering, etc.

I see no harm in it. Even better: I love it!

Improve this answer
18
  • Why would you want to be 'pinged' or 'flagged'. The review process (I thought), should be confidential. This surely will only cause disputes, and no good can really come of it.
    – jbutler483
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:42
  • 2
    @jbutler483 Why would you think that good wouldn't come of disputes in reviewing content? It's how people learn and improve as moderators.
    – Servy
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:43
  • I have had some occasions where someone (usually from the Tavern) pinged me about approving or rejecting an suggested edit. I like that. @jbutler483
    – Patrick Hofman
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:45
  • As a user with these 'moderator' privileges, there shouldn't be any disputes. Any that do come, arrive here on meta. So why stir anything in chat in which the mods have to step in anyway? At least when it comes to meta, or 'court', it can get cleaned up (is that not what meta is for?)
    – jbutler483
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:46
  • @jbutler483 That is what meta is for, and it's where this largely happens. The moderation history is an extraordinary useful tool when discussing issues on meta, and it's a place where disputes over a particular moderation action typically happen.
    – Servy
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:50
  • I can understand all the points that are being put forward here. But I certainly can't bring myself to agree with the point that viewing the Low Quality Posts Review decision (including any Audits) etc is good. Anyway, thanks for the answer and I would wait a while before accepting.
    – Harry
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:53
  • 1
    @Harry Then don't review content if you're unwilling to accept the fact that others will be able to look over your shoulder and make sure you're doing a good job.
    – Servy
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:56
  • @Servy: Surely, though, That is going against what Patrick is saying - who is suggesting 'ping' in chat - whist you're saying meta should be used? All of which isn't referring to this 'review history' in which I feel in just an unneccessary feature here. I just feel this is going to be the root of some arguments, that's all.
    – jbutler483
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 13:57
  • @Servy: Thanks again for the comment. I do regularly use the review queue and would have done so even if I knew about this earlier, so the question is most certainly not about whether I am willing to review despite this or not. It was just about whether the current situation is correct or not.
    – Harry
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 14:00
  • @jbutler483 It would depend on the severity. Some cases should be flagged, others discussed. Others can be worked out between community members.
    – Patrick Hofman
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 14:00
  • 2
    @jbutler483 What medium someone chooses to bring up a problem they find in someone else's review history isn't really an issue. Either medium is fine. Meta is more common for most, chat is what Patrick happens to prefer personally (which is fine). Yes, being able to see other people's review history can cause some arguments. That's not a bad thing. Having a debate over the best way to review certain types of content can be very helpful in helping the community come to a consensus, and to learn more about how to review in general. If you don't want to participate in that, then don't.
    – Servy
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 14:01
  • @Servy: You are taking this way out of proportion. Even suggesting that I 'shouldn't review' because I "don't want to participate" is wrong. What I'm asking is why cause an un-neccessary issue when one isn't required? This 'feature' isn't going to help solve anything - it's just going to mean that mods will have to ensure no 'revenge' downvotes, no "out of hand" comments are posted. Why cause an issue when meta deals with this (quite well, I might add).
    – jbutler483
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 14:05
  • @jbutler483 So you're saying nobody is every going to review inappropriately, thus meriting a discussion about the quality of their reviewing? Or are you assuming that people will only ever incorrectly critique other people's reviews and they'll never bring up legitimate problems or errors in other people's review history? It seems rather unlikely that every single time anyone ever looks at someone else's review history and doesn't like what they see that they're the one who's wrong.
    – Servy
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 14:08
  • 3
    @jbutler483 Hundreds of edits are rejected each day. I probably see a few contested rejected edits each month. If you think that every single rejected edit is disputed on meta, then you're sorely mistaken. And why would someone make a meta post to say, "thanks for reviewing my edit"? It'd be a waste of everyone's time. Of course the vast majority of people bringing up a review are disputing it. Some will be mistaken in their complaint, and some will be quite justified in disputing the review. You seem to think that everyone disputing a review is the one who made the mistake.
    – Servy
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 14:15
  • 2
    @jbutler483 There is no way to comment to reviewers of an edit, so how you expect them to use a function that doesn't exist is beyond me. So, again, you seem to be claiming that people will only ever dispute correct reviews, and never dispute incorrect reviews. What makes you say that? And even when people dispute reviews that were valid, it often teaches them more about what they did wrong, helping them better use the site. The fact that every moderation dispute isn't helpful doesn't mean none of them are.
    – Servy
    Commented Apr 17, 2015 at 14:30
3

Reviews are public, because the content and users are

The questions, answers, edits, etc., are all public content, and the reviews performed on the content is by public users, so why shouldn't the actions be public too?

We really need to see each others' reviews.
For one it's useful to see what others are deciding, not to base our own decision on, just to learn and improve how we review, etc.
But mostly because we are the ones moderating the site, and when you are managing things like reviews, etc., you need your hands on all tools and this includes historical actions.

If reviews were private then any issues with those reviews or reviewers would mean appointed official moderators would have to step in.
And then we'd need a lot of moderators on some sites.

As it is, we can all see what happened, and make rollbacks, re-open, close, etc. The community can moderate the site and see how it's being moderated.

Public actions should not be moved into a private place

You cannot have public moderating, but private history of the public moderating.
As then all this public content and reviewing has an element of private to it, and you simply cause problems which end up needing either the original reviewers to action, which is never going to work out well, or moderators, which is not practical/inefficient.

The only way reviews being private would possibly work well is if the reviewing was not carried out by public users like me and you.
That is, done by official moderators.

Much like a standard forum, where an appointed moderator acts on bad threads, spam, etc., and any discussions about users or problems is done behind the scenes with other moderators/staff/owners.

It simply wouldn't work where public users moderate the site, but cannot discuss the decisions publicly. This is always going to cause major issues.

I sincerely enjoy the fact Stack Exchange has a really good structure for community to moderate the content.
It doesn't always work perfectly, and there will always be niggles even just from the difference in opinion, but for the most part, it runs pretty smoothly.

Public then private?

Reviews have to initially be public so any user can action the review.
So to make the review history private means a review would be public for the duration of reviewing, but then private once a decision is made.
This seems entirely pointless, and detrimental to how a publicly moderated site should operate.

Specific reviews private

I certainly can't bring myself to agree with the point that viewing the Low Quality Posts Review decision (including any Audits), etc. is good.

Why should a specific review type be any different to the others? Does the low-quality (LQ) flag have some kind of requirement which means no-one should see what went on?

It's one thing to state you don't think this should happen, but why shouldn't it happen?
Reasons?

My review is mine!

Say users Bob, John, and Sally perform a review, why should they be the only ones in this huge and public community be able to see those reviews which they did?
Why should they only see the reviews on public content on a public site where anyone of us could have done the review instead of them?

And so they cannot see the reviews you and I did?

If I review something, you have as much right as me to see that review. Otherwise we're creating a privilege which locks the entire site out of review history other than the few who handled the flag.
This is backwards, and to be honest, I've yet to see a solid argument why reviews being public is a bad thing.

The comments I've seen so far only seem to state generic things about they shouldn't be public, as if it's just a given that it's a bad idea.
You need reasons, facts, or just ideas, as to why something is bad or should be changed.

Why?

Are you wanting to hide bad flags or poor reviewing you do?

If yes then you need them to all be public so you can see how others do it and learn and be a better reviewer.

If no then there is no problem, surely?

The point of having community moderation is that it's all entirely public, and everything community does is public, because community is us lot, the users, the public folks on the sites, moderating the public content.

Improve this answer
1
  • Thanks for the answer. Initially when I posted the question, I had assumed this to be unintentional (and that's why I had tagged it as a bug) but after seeing some of the comments, I had understood that this was intentional and also has a good reason behind it which is why I had not dragged the discussion on further. I specifically quoted the Low Quality reviews because they are more likely to result in grudges/negative discussions. But I am pretty sure all the pros & cons would have been thoroughly discussed before taking such a decision. It is just that I need sometime to get used to it :)
    – Harry
    Commented Apr 19, 2015 at 6:27

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