We’re stopping for a moment this month to review the editor labor needed to human re-review articles that are updated/edited by our members.
Last month, 8,149 articles by 2,031 unique authors were human re-reviewed. See image:
Of those, 1,677 unique authors had less than 5 articles being re-reviewed. Here’s a list of the authors with the most manual re-reviewed articles last month:
Blatant Honesty: What we’re trying to establish: A cut-off that would allow us to continue free article re-approvals for the bulk of our members and provide a premium level of service for our most active members who like to edit their articles a lot…
We’ve typically treated articles that were already accepted and being edited as critical to review so they can return to the public site, but the labor to support this service and speed has crept up and out of control.
Next up on our list of reports to create and review: Drilling further to figure out what the bulk of the edits are in… meaning, are members updating spelling errors or are the bulk updating their resource boxes? We don’t know yet…but will soon.
Your thoughts on all this?