When processing the Review and Moderator queues may we please have a means of being notified that someone else is also looking at the same post?

This is an all to frequent occurrence, one (and possibly more) of us is duplicating review energy which would be better spent on skipping to the next item in queue.

review queue fastest gun issue screenshot


  • so a reviewing lock (of say 60 seconds?) meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22228/what-is-a-locked-post
    – Mapperz Mod
    Commented Aug 26, 2013 at 21:00
  • 4
    @Mapperz it needn't be a lock, just some kind of indication that someone else is reviewing the item. Perhaps something akin to the chat "who else is in the room" avatars. Commented Aug 27, 2013 at 12:32
  • On reflection, strike 'who' from the request. We don't need to know the names of other reviewers present, just that there are reviewers present. Commented Sep 5, 2013 at 16:04
  • This could only be implemented network-wide so would need to be proposed on Meta Stack Exchange, if it has not already. Consequently, I'm setting it to status-deferred.
    – PolyGeo Mod
    Commented Aug 12, 2016 at 6:29

1 Answer 1


No matter how hard we try, reviews will always be subjective, so I don't agree with your premise that there is redundant redundancy. At least from the requests I've seen, the number of trivial ones is relatively small, so more eyes give better results. (How often do these collisions happen anyway?)

That doesn't mean I don't agree with your proposal.

  • 2
    (1) What is the relevance of subjectivity of reviews to the suggestion made by the OP? (2) I experience such collisions about once per week. That's probably on the high end for most users. But when they happen they are annoying: who wants to undertake an activity, even for just a minute, on the chance that it will be summarily rejected afterwards without notice?
    – whuber
    Commented Sep 2, 2013 at 18:46
  • Like I said, it pertains to the base reason for the request. As for (2), the frequency of collisions where work is silently wasted is apparently only a small subset (only deleted questions/answers?) and neither the question nor my answer were limited to that. Considering everything, I still believe that some nuisance now and then does not outweight the benefits of the whole practice. Commented Sep 2, 2013 at 23:13
  • 1
    I'm not saying that I think only 1 person should conduct a review. I fully concur that more eyes reviewing will provide a better result. The point of the feature request / problem report is to provide information so that duplicate reviews don't happen at the same time. Commented Sep 5, 2013 at 16:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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