« first day (2637 days earlier)      last day (138 days later) » 

8:37 AM
@ymb1 Can you elaborate on what the problem was/is here? aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/84730/…
2 hours later…
10:52 AM
@Jamiec still is, not was -- users (plural) that misuse the Edit option of reviews: it leads to unilateral Looks OK, or kicks the post off the review. which as far as I'm concerned, especially since it has been communicated, is rude to the community decision making, and against the guidelines aviation.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3931
quote: Keep in mind that editing within the queue will be a unilateral Looks OK vote, so be careful with edits that just make minor improvements ("rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic").
if you (mod team) know of a better way to communicate it or handle it, please
11:08 AM
Sounds like its one for SE - somewhat out of our control @ymb1
@Jamiec how so? isn't misusing review handled by mods?
Why should an edit affect the review queue... thats dumb. I cant change the way SE decides things should work
@Jamiec it's not dumb if used correctly actually
anyway that's not the point: there is function A, guidelines for A, and A is being misused, now what do we do? discuss it with the users? or blame A?
blame A for existing that is ><
@Jamiec if you'd like I can ask on MSE for what's recommended
11:24 AM
Feel free to ask on MSE. But to me, if SE have decided that an edit should have a specific action that's their business. I don't think we can ever police "That edit was justified/extensive enough"
11:39 AM
@Jamiec : Given a flight number, how can I know the date of the first flight


How can I know the date of the first flight with a given flight number?
seriously, there is a question in whether that was justified
slash extensive enough
The important question is one of UX - does the review page tell me what is going to happen when I make that edit? This is, again, one for SE not aviation mods
I know you didn't design the function, but what I'm asking, communicating out of respect to the community decision making, is not outlandish or an extreme request
Q: Please Mods, use your powers moderately!

DeltaLimaOur mods are doing a great job keeping this site as good as it is. Most of the work they do is behind the scenes and goes unnoticed to most of us. However, in the last 24 hours or so, I've noticed two questions have been closed by a moderator vote. The power of these votes is such that, on their ...

Admonishing a user for editing a question is not moderate
communicating =/= admonishing !
Damned if we do, damned if we dont!
I'll see what others think, but the outcome was the same here. A bad question got closed, and with very slightly better worded title.
I really don't see what harm has been done
11:45 AM
in the past months there's been more than one example, some which survived because of that action
month *
I didn't say anything, but I was told you forget and no issue in @'ing, so here we are
it's fine, I can understand your position, but when it comes up that reviewers aren't reviewing, now you know partly why -- and again, no blame from my end
Half the problem here is the mod tools are so f'in useless I can barely understand what went on with that review
And therein is my problem - im so fed up with SE's lack of interest in providing us proper tools to moderate these sites it just becomes pointless
Federico hinted at something like that before, it made me wonder, if the mod review page is convoluted, why not open the post in a separate tab as we see it?
So, now to do my non-job (I do have an actual job) I need to have 2 windows open - one logged in, one logged out?
The deep deep documentation does back up what you're saying BTW but who ever reads instructions?
no, I mean the timeline / post page, not logged out
>Edit should be reserved for when the question is close-worthy as written, but when you believe you can rescue the question to make it fit the scope. This may mean adding in details the asker left in comments or making slight adjustments to an opinion-based question so that it's objective. Don’t make minor edits if the question would be closed even with these changes, as it will remove the question from review.
11:51 AM
that agrees with the issue I raised, what's the point?
You're absolutely right is the point.
But it's burried deep in the "docs" which I guarantee you almost nobody reads before entering the review queues. I never had thats for sure
that edit and others, were not improvements to keep it open
in any sense of the word
i made the meta post before the new UI, older UI had a longer sentence
but same meaning
So that particular review was 2x Close (incl you), 1 leave open and 1 Edit (which we'll call a "I think this should be left open with my edit"). Still hardly unanimous. If that was 3x close and 1x edit/leave open I would be sending a polite message without hesitation.
it was kicked off the queue, i.e. if nobody passed by, that's it, a rotting 3x close
but it wasnt. It was a 2x close 1x leave open
11:56 AM
yes, and no more eyes allowed via the review queue
I still think this is one for SE. If 1 edit can trump 2 close votes there must be some thought (or a bug) behind that
I know it doesn't change anything, but it was 3x not 2x, the 1st close is the flag which remains anonymous in the timeline -- i.e. the person who first sent it to the queue
Our overlords have ignored this problem time and again: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/212862/…
2 hours later…
1:52 PM
I agree with both @ymb1 and @Jamiec here: the "edit and keep open" option is not a good feature because in most of the cases it does more harm than good. It should be either "edit and vote to keep open", or "edit and let others decide". The current implementation is a frustrating backdoor to keep low quality questions from being closed.
2:44 PM
@DeltaLima & @ymb1 FWIW I sent this user a note to point them to the problem.
3:03 PM
@Jamiec thank you
3 hours later…
5:34 PM
@DeltaLima thanks for the input / @Jamiec thanks for the talk, silly me thought it was a straightforward flag, but you added a valuable perspective

« first day (2637 days earlier)      last day (138 days later) »