8

At the moment review queues show (fuzzied?) total number of items in the queue. Instead, the number of review items filtered by users current filter should be shown.

This mostly affects Close Votes, where I now see 7,5K items to review. Then I can click on it, and see that there's at least one in my filter tags. But I have no idea how many I'd have to review to get to the blissful empty queue, and that seems to negatively affect my motivation to review Close Votes queue.

At least I'd be much more motivated to check the number of items there are to review for me (by my current filter), and then make my number 0, if I could actually see that 0. If I'm not the only one who uses filters and feels demotivated by meaningless numbers, then it might be worth it to do this small tweak. The totals could also be shown of course, but preferably less prominently.

18
  • The number isn't personalizable; it already is 'fuzzy' because it would kill site performance stone dead if it showed your possible review count.. Commented May 18, 2014 at 8:32
  • @MartijnPieters Yeah, I was a bit afraid of performance issues, but didn't want to muddle the question with that. Still, I think that's only a technical reason to not implement the feature, even if it'd be a nice thing.
    – hyde
    Commented May 18, 2014 at 8:35
  • @MartijnPieters About duplicate, you yourself comment there "It has nothing to do with tag filters.", while this question is all about user's filters...
    – hyde
    Commented May 18, 2014 at 8:35
  • Right, but the reason this feature request cannot be implemented is answered there. Commented May 18, 2014 at 8:36
  • @MartijnPieters Are you familiar enough with SE databases and code to conclusively say, it'd be expensive to implement? It might need something like adding a table for queue lengths per tag, or whatever, and it wouldn't have to be 100% accurate 100% of the time either. The amount of actual data to keep is very small (number_of_queues*number_of_tags integers, or less if this was done only for Close Votes where it'd be useful).
    – hyde
    Commented May 18, 2014 at 8:43
  • I am experienced enough with web development and database development to take the SE team's word for it when they say that personalising the number is way too costly. Note that I quote the SE team in my answer. Commented May 18, 2014 at 8:44
  • 1
    Note that it already doesn't show the same number to everyone. For example, if you flag something as "very low quality" and it enters the review queue, your number and someone else's number of reviews available will be different. Commented May 18, 2014 at 9:35
  • 1
    Although not real-time you can create a SEDE query, for example Hours a tag has a close vote to give you some indication for stale tags as well as this query for absolute counts. Do note that this query doesn't take the expiration of votes into consideration (yet)...
    – rene
    Commented May 18, 2014 at 12:36
  • @rene Thanks for the queries! My SQL is rather rusty, so I couldn't have written those myself.
    – hyde
    Commented May 18, 2014 at 13:08
  • Turns out the current SEDE dump is 7 hours old so at the moment you're looking at relatively fresh data (normally SEDE is updated once a week on monday)
    – rene
    Commented May 18, 2014 at 13:12
  • 1
    @MartijnPieters To continue about this being duplicate. This is different from having a personal count, this is count according to filter tags. Everybody with same filter tags would get same numbers.
    – hyde
    Commented May 18, 2014 at 13:12
  • @hyde, but with the number of possible filters available - e.g. every tag * every close reason, the cost probably isn't all that different from if it was an individual's count
    – OGHaza
    Commented May 18, 2014 at 15:32
  • @OGHaza Note that there already must be indexes etc needed for efficiently getting posts which match any of a set of 3 tags, because that is done every time a user is given next item to review. I'm not an SQL expert, so I can't say if "get next matching item" and "get count of matching items" are always radically different operations, or if they can be easily made approximately as expensive peformance-wise. But it'd seem strange to me, if SQL DB can't be easily set up to also be able to give count, not just next match...
    – hyde
    Commented May 19, 2014 at 6:08
  • @Darshan can you please cast a final reopen vote? This is not a dupe as this is feature request while the other is bug report. Commented May 26, 2014 at 9:05
  • 1
    I find such a feature is good! I look at queues and see there are some, go into - nothing matches to my filter :(. It would be good to see something like this 132(7), where 7 is the number of matched reviews.
    – Rekshino
    Commented May 11, 2017 at 12:43

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .