Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I should start by saying I got what I wanted, except it would be nice if I could choose "It's OK but I'm lazy and want to add one of the template comments".

For this review of this answer I wanted to mark it as a link-only answer, even though I knew it was presumably otherwise correct.

The system admonished me but still really added the comment. Like I said, what I wanted, but inconsistent nonetheless.

In fact gnat was fixing it, via Review > Edit, while I was being lazy, so I'd delete the comment except that I'm mentioning it here on meta. Gnat has mentioned in the comments that his review edit was rejected too! I see that as a separate bug. He changed it manually afterwards.

share|improve this question
On what ground did you recommend deletion? The answer gives the code required by the op and links to the official documentation of the method. – assylias Oct 23 '12 at 6:37
by the way my Review->Edit was rejected with silly message like "this answer is good enough already"; I edited answer from outside of review – gnat Oct 23 '12 at 6:38
@gnat - You can't improve something even if you see ways to improve it? Why do we even have people doing manual reviews if the system allegedly knows what's best... Sure, the answer wasn't delete or even downvote worthy, but you made it upvote-worthy. – jmort253 Oct 23 '12 at 6:40
@assylias Exactly, I should have got admonished. But as it was the answer didn't expand the link like we've decided you need to do. I wanted the comment to be added, and for a moment I thought I'd helped gnat decide to fix it, until I saw his review was a minute before mine. – Mark Hurd Oct 23 '12 at 6:40
@jmort253 you mean, Big Brother is watching us? – gnat Oct 23 '12 at 6:40
@gnat That's definitely a bug then too! – Mark Hurd Oct 23 '12 at 6:41
@gnat - Just feels a little too scripted. Why have people indicate what actions should be taken on the post if the system is just going to tell you you're wrong... I can see it tripping people up purposely with close votes... but every answer could use some form of improvement... even good answers... that's a good thing... – jmort253 Oct 23 '12 at 6:42
@jmort253 yeah, in this case it was especially embarrassing: edit idea was pretty obvious since OP and answerer discussed missing details in comments :) – gnat Oct 23 '12 at 6:44
And after all this gnat and I wouldn't have got an extra review count, but I assume WATTO Studios would, for doing nothing :-| – Mark Hurd Oct 23 '12 at 6:46
@jmort253 The system won't always tell you what to do. As a result of a lot of poor reviews a handful of posts that normally wouldn't be added to the queue are stuck in, with a know "correct" decision base on actions that have already taken place. If the reviewer is inconstant with that action (frequently) it can indicate they are a poor reviewer. – Servy Oct 23 '12 at 18:43
up vote 4 down vote accepted

There was a bug in the "recommend delete" case combined with audit tasks. This will be fixed in the next build.

share|improve this answer
For other bugs I normally wait until I can see it fixed before accepting an answer, but in this case I don't want to be seen as a "poor reviewer" by often doing this just to see if I can't anymore. – Mark Hurd Oct 24 '12 at 0:01
Geoff, would this fix also include the "edit sub-case" described in question comments? Review->Edit was rejected with silly message like "this answer is good enough already" – gnat Oct 24 '12 at 7:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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