Unfortunately in my 164th review I misclicked as duplicate two posts that were very clearly not duplicates. There doesn't seem to be any way to go back and fix it. [My browser was being slow to load after review 163 and I quickly saw the next was not a duplicate, but the screen for review 164 re-drew just as I was about to click, changing which button was under the cursor.]

This is a major problem -- as far as I recall I have only marked one previous pair as duplicate so (if I remembered that right), there's now a 50% error rate in my marking as duplicate. With duplicates so rare in your current data set, that's likely to screw up what data you're likely to end up with pretty badly (certainly the part of it that's from me, anyway)

This is likely to be a more widespread problem than just me, since the chance of such a misclick goes up the more other people review too -- and not everyone will notice. If only one in several hundred posts is a duplicate the chance that a substantial fraction of the marked duplicates is nothing of the kind will become quite high.

Not providing a way to way to review and fix that is likely to leave the resulting data set with greatly decreased value.

Unfortunately in my 164th review I misclicked as duplicate two posts that were very clearly not duplicates. There doesn't seem to be any way to go back and fix it. [The site sort of loads the page and then seems to "shift" the pages as it finishes putting everything on it/redraws it - my browser was being slow to load after review 163 and I quickly saw the next was not a duplicate, but the screen for review 164 "re-drew" just as I was about to click, changing which button was under the cursor.]

This (not being able to fix the resulting error from a misplaced click, however generated) is a major problem -- as far as I recall I have only marked one previous pair as duplicate so (if I remembered that right), there's now a 50% error rate in my marking as duplicate. With duplicates so rare in your current data set, that's likely to screw up what data you're likely to end up with pretty badly (certainly the part of it that's from me, anyway)

This is likely to be a more widespread problem than just me, since the chance of such a misclick goes up the more other people review too -- and not everyone will notice. If only one in several hundred posts is a duplicate the chance that a substantial fraction of the marked duplicates is nothing of the kind will become quite high (e.g. imagine people make a mistake about one time in 50, marking a duplicate as not or vice-versa ... and also that about one pair of posts in 200 is really a duplicate... then the majority of posts marked as duplicates won't be duplicates!)

Not providing a way to way to review and fix that is likely to leave the resulting data set with greatly decreased value.

Unfortunately in my 164th review I misclicked as duplicate two posts that were very clearly not duplicates. There doesn't seem to be any way to go back and fix it.

This is a major problem -- as far as I recall I have only marked one previous pair as duplicate so (if I remembered that right), there's now a 50% error rate in my marking as duplicate. With duplicates so rare in your current data set, that's likely to screw up what data you're likely to end up with pretty badly (certainly the part of it that's from me, anyway)

This is likely to be a more widespread problem than just me, since the chance of such a misclick goes up the more other people review too -- and not everyone will notice. If only one in several hundred posts is a duplicate the chance that a substantial fraction of the marked duplicates is nothing of the kind will become quite high.

Not providing a way to way to review and fix that is likely to leave the resulting data set with greatly decreased value.

Unfortunately in my 164th review I misclicked as duplicate two posts that were very clearly not duplicates. There doesn't seem to be any way to go back and fix it. [My browser was being slow to load after review 163 and I quickly saw the next was not a duplicate, but the screen for review 164 re-drew just as I was about to click, changing which button was under the cursor.]

This is a major problem -- as far as I recall I have only marked one previous pair as duplicate so (if I remembered that right), there's now a 50% error rate in my marking as duplicate. With duplicates so rare in your current data set, that's likely to screw up what data you're likely to end up with pretty badly (certainly the part of it that's from me, anyway)

This is likely to be a more widespread problem than just me, since the chance of such a misclick goes up the more other people review too -- and not everyone will notice. If only one in several hundred posts is a duplicate the chance that a substantial fraction of the marked duplicates is nothing of the kind will become quite high.

Not providing a way to way to review and fix that is likely to leave the resulting data set with greatly decreased value.