Lacking confidence in my reviewing abilities, I usually avoid the review queue.  But, I've been asking a decent amount of questions lately and haven't found many questions I could answer (so as to maintain karmic neutrality or whatever).  So, I've been reviewing more lately.  Wanting to improve my reviewer chops, I've been looking around for ways of getting feedback, but not finding much.  Sure, sometimes the review system gives you a fake question, but those're pretty obviously good/bad.    Wanting to spur some good discussion, let's lay out some basics.    Hypotheticals Here are some hypothetical examples: (A) 85% of the questions I marked as "Looks OK" ended up being considered genuinely OK. (B) 40% of the questions I flagged for "Requires Editing" ended up being closed for needing more detail. (C) Typically when I flag a late answer to a  question, it's subsequently unanimously marked as OK.   Note that, in each of these cases, I'm learning something specific and actionable about my reviewing approach.  Also note that this information is nuanced:  it's easy to see whether or not my "Looks OK" reviews match the consensus with a check or X UI element (as ), and a percentage agreement with the consensus (as ) would provide a more quantitative metric.  But, neither would provide the more targeted feedback shown in hypotheticals (B) and (C).  Equally importantly, the , so we shouldn't give this impression.    Not Outsmarting Ourselves For several reasons (humans are imperfect, reviews are limited, etc.), we shouldn't push everyone to review exactly the same way.  So, an important question in any such improvement is how to allow for some wiggle room?  To me, this is the keystone to doing this right.  Indicating that the consensus answer is always right/wrong is a problematic precedent.  Perhaps the feedback system should compare how often my reviews deviated from the norm to how often others' reviews do so, i.e. normalizing the variance.  What about a system that provides notifications when we're making the same mistakes?  E.g. the next time I flag a late  answer, a pop-up tells me that reviewers don't usually agree with me when I do this.  In this way, a nudge is provided against my worst behaviors right as I'm making them.    As it stands, I've had a really hard time figuring out how to be a better reviewer, and it continues to be a deterrent to me reviewing items.  This feels bad for the community, and it feels fixable.  But, I'm far from a specialist in these matters, and don't have a good sense of what is doable.  So, how could automated reviewer feedback be better conveyed?  Do any of the ideas above hold water?    EDIT 1 The zeroth-order solution would be  or a slightly improved version in , though, as laid out in this question, I don't think it'd be hard to provide much more powerful feedback that also doesn't push people too hard toward reviewing the same way.    EDIT 2 Reorganized, updated throughout to juxtapose more strongly to the two related questions (for which this question is currently marked a duplicate), and to emphasize how this question differs.
I have tried to dig around for this, but I can't find a way (other than stepping one by one through past reviews) to see what proportion of my review decisions match the eventual outcome of the review.  This stat would give me confidence that I'm in line with the review guidance and not becoming too lenient in my old age. If it gets too low, I can then double check individual reviews to find out why I'm missing the mark.
Referencing without captions appearing but keeping numbering Can you grammatically end a sentence with "with"? Do you want to come with? Can I come with?  I seem to hear this construction more often in recent years, but it still grates on my ear. I know it's often said that one shouldn't , but I class that rule along with  (i.e. — pedantic tosh). Is it always informal/casual speech to end a sentence with &quot;with&quot;? Was it ever thus? Can a willing lycanthrope be True Polymorphed? Can a lycanthrope or other shapeshifter be willingly affected by the spell True Polymorph? I know that it can be affected by regular Polymorph, but the text for the enhanced version seems to differ. Proofs of consistency for two formal systems Do there exist two formal systems, $F_1$ and $F_2$, such that $F_1$ proves $F_2$ is consistent and $F_2$ proves $F_1$ is consistent?  Would these proofs bypass Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem?  By "consistent", I mean the formal system does not prove $X$ and NOT $X$. Schengen Visa Refusal: Justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not provided Schengen refusal formulae can be difficult to understand sometimes.    When an applicant receives a refusal with "Justification for the purpose and conditions of the intended stay was not provided", what does it mean? I have video tutorials that I want to show in my presentation with beamer class. I don't want the video files get embedded to the PDF because they will make the PDF size very very huge.  If you know how the videos can be played on the HTML with a reference rather than embedding the video file to the HTML file, I want something like this to be applied to my PDF presentation. I just want to reference the video URL from my PDF presentation.   Shortly speaking, can we use media9 to show a video on a PDF but the video is not embedded to the PDF?  Uploading those videos to a web server might be difficult for me because internet connection is very slow and sometimes not available in the presentation room. :-) Changing the resistor to be in front or behind an LED doesn't affect brightness? Is there a maximum number of devices allowed on a Google Play Account? What is true for a ring with exactly two right ideals Having trouble finding Plantera's Bulb I have been playing on hardmode for a while and have beaten the three  a couple of times. But I have yet to find a . It's getting really frustrating.  Does anyone have any methods to finding a Plantera Bulb? I'm going to install Linux on Lenovo B5400, which contains:   500GB Hybrid SSHD with a 8 GB SSD and 500 GB HDD   Designing partitions for my 2 Linux distros was quite easy before, when I had only HDD. I always had:   10GB for Linux distro (mounted as "/") 10GB for another distro (again "/"; for another distro; for testing purposes or to assure continuity when switching distros) 2GB for swap (used for both distros; no need to separate) 300GB+ for "/home" (used for both distros; different usernames eliminates possible conflicts)   It's simple, isn't it? I would like to keep this approach, but I know that SSD has its own specificity - it prefers to be read, continuous writing may affect its life span. I don't want to kill SSD in a year, so I would like to move some system partitions to HDD in order to protect SSD. As far as I know /tmp is one of often read&amp;written locations. How much space it needs? What else should be placed on HDD?  Or: how to design partitions to achieve exactly the same effect and to keep SSD as safe as possible?  I'd be grateful for your help. Possible Duplicate:          The  describes the expansion of the $n$th power of the sum $(a+b)$:  $$(a+b)^n = \sum_{k = 0}^n {n\choose k}a^kb^{n-k}$$  In calculus, there is a generalization of the product rule called , which describes the expansion of the $n$th derivative of the product of two functions $f$ and $g$:  $$(fg)^{(n)} = \sum_{k = 0}^n {n\choose k}f^{(k)}g^{(n-k)}$$  It's not difficult to prove using the product rule and induction, what I'm really trying understand here is why the formula is true. Is there a way to prove it using the binomial formula? How are these two formulas related? Is there a combinatorial proof for Leibniz's rule like there is for the ?   I understand this question is a bit vague, but I hope you'll agree that these two formulas look so similar it just feels like there should be some relation between the two. Of course this is not necessarily true, but I'm hoping it's not just a crazy coincidence. Are punches with Gauntlets of Ogre Strength magical, improvised weapon attacks? My Gnoll Paladin just got the Gauntlets of Ogre Strength from Phandelver the other day, and it got me wondering:    Would it be possible/make sense for punches using them to count as an improvised weapon? (Since I'm not punching with empty fists, I'm wearing magical gauntlets) If so, would punches from a person using them count as magical weapon damage? I was using this:    To try and create numbered examples in my document.  However, when I load it and put the example exe in that link in one of the separate Tex files (Introduction.tex) I include in main.tex, I get:  ./Chapters/Introduction.tex:14: TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [parameter stack s ize=10000]. \gb@ifnextchar #1#2#3-&gt;                        \let \reserved@d =#1\def \reserved@a {#2}\def \reserv... l.14 ... and political news \cite{washington_post}                                                   .  More importantly, when ...   Which is not even referring to the exe example I inserted but a couple of blocks of tex above it.  For info, here is my full code before my document begins:  \documentclass{report} % [fontsize=11pt,border=5pt] % standalone for the tree \usepackage{forest} % This overrides warnings like http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/52576/difference-between-bookmark-levels-greater-than-one-what-does-this-mean \usepackage{bookmark} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{subcaption} \usepackage{standalone} \usepackage[round]{natbib} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{lmodern} \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % This is for hyperlinks \usepackage{hyperref} \hypersetup{     colorlinks=true,     linkcolor=blue,     filecolor=magenta,           urlcolor=cyan, }  \urlstyle{same} % Not sure why I need to use this % \usepackage{graphicx} % \graphicspath{ {images/} } % \usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx} % fontsize=11pt,twoside]{scrartcl} % This is for numbered examples \usepackage{gb4e}   Would appreciate some help as I feel like my Latex is very messy here. Test for finite variance? Is it possible to test for finiteness (or existence) of the variance of a random variable given a sample? As a null, either {the variance exists and is finite} or {the variance does not exist/is infinite} would be acceptable. Philosophically (and computationally), this seems very strange because there should be no difference between a population without finite variance, and one with a very very large variance (say > $10^{400}$), so I am not hopeful this problem can be solved.  One approach that had been suggested to me was via the Central Limit Theorem: assuming the samples are i.i.d., and the population has finite mean, one could check, somehow, whether the sample mean has the right standard error with increasing sample size. I'm not sure I believe this method would work, though. (In particular, I don't see how to make it into a proper test.) Wear a hat multiple times? How to boot from a USB drive in VirtualBox? The question is simple and straight forward:  How to boot from an USB drive in VirtualBox?  EDIT:  I have attached usb to VirtualBox as shown in the screenshot.    But it is not possible to boot from an USB drive even when attached  .  So I would like to know if there is any other possiblity to boot from an USB drive? What does the 'rc' in `.bashrc`, etc. mean? Well, this is embarrassing. I feel like I just realised I don't know a loyal colleague's name after working with them for 10 years. "Hey, er... *cough!*, thanks for that great job you did on setting my aliases this morning..."  What do the letters rc signify in .bashrc, .kshrc, etc.?  If you know, please cite sources.  Even if you don't know, I'd also welcome unfounded assumptions, suggestions or alternatives if they're marked as such. Dedicated mouse and keyboard for a virtual machine, is it possible? Inequality with complex numbers Consider the following problem.  Fix $n \in \mathbb N$. Prove that for every set of complex numbers $\{z_i\}_{1\le i \le n}$, there is a subset $J\subset \{1,\dots , n\}$ such that   $$\left|\sum_{j\in J} z_j\right|\ge \frac{1}{4\sqrt 2} \sum_{k=1}^n |z_k|.$$  I believe I proven have a stronger statement. Is this proof correct, and if so, what is the optimal constant?  My proof. Consider all the $z_i$ with positive real part. Call the real part of the sum of these numbers $X^+$. In a similar way, form $X^-$, $Y^+$, and $Y^-$. Without loss of generality, let $X^+$ have the greatest magnitude of these.  Note that because $|\operatorname{Re}(z)|+|\operatorname{Im}(z)|\ge |z|$, we have  $$ \left(\sum_{k=1}^n  |\operatorname{Re}(z_k)|+|\operatorname{Im}(z_k)| \right) \ge \sum_{k=1}^n |z_k|.$$  But note that $\sum \limits_{k=1}^n  |\operatorname{Re}(z_k)|+|\operatorname{Im}(z_k)| = X^+ + |X^-|+ Y^+ +|Y^-|$, so we have  $$ 4X^+ \ge \sum_{k=1}^n |z_k|.$$ By choosing $J$ to be the set of complex number with positive real part, this proves a stronger statement, because the factor of $1/\sqrt 2$ isn't needed.