What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

I've argued passionately in the past that when reviewing edits, Skip is often a blatantly wrong choice. I also feel there should be edit honeypots, but I believe there are not.

For the remaining review queues, is Skip always a not-wrong choice? Are there audits out there that will tell someone "no, you should not have skipped this one?"

Here is a screenshot (from This audit looks completely obvious. Is it really needed? ) of an audit where upvoting would clearly be wrong:

enter image description here

I don't think you need technical expertise to act on this one. Skip would surely be wrong here - so I was wondering if it would be called out as wrong. Perhaps honeypots that are so awful they shouldn't even be skipped are really rare in the non-edit queues. (In the suggested edit queue, awful no-expertise-needed examples are not rare at all.)

share|improve this question
1  
No, I don't think there are... –  Dynamic Dec 29 '12 at 17:00
1  
can you give an example of a honeypot item where you could justify skip as an audit failure? It would be nice for justification to somehow "integrate" cases when reviewer skips to win a race against robo-stampers as described eg here –  gnat Dec 29 '12 at 20:54
    
@gnat how about meta.stackexchange.com/questions/157300/… –  Kate Gregory Dec 29 '12 at 21:27
    
@KateGregory thanks! agree, that would make a good test for "failed skip". Very good one I think, consider including it as an example into your question –  gnat Dec 30 '12 at 5:42

3 Answers 3

up vote 25 down vote accepted

No, they are not. "Skip" does one thing: It removes the page from that review queue for you. That's it. If you "Skip", you mean that "I don't wanna review this". Since "reviewing" includes reading the post, there's no need to punish you for not acting on a post you may not have read.

The audits are to stop robo-reviewers (who do it for the badges) from, well, robo-reviewing. Skipping doesn't put you closer to any badges, so no point in punishing that.

share|improve this answer
4  
That's correct: Since you avoided taking any action that would put you closer to getting a badge, there is no reason to being punished. Also, clicking on "Skip" is better than voting a post just to be able to get a new review accredited. –  kiamlaluno Dec 29 '12 at 17:53

I often skip because I feel I can't judge if it is right or wrong without diving into Python, Haskell or Lisp... (you get my point) or search for similar answers/google.

When I click Skip I say to myself 'Somebody else with more knowledge on this topic should decide'.

So I see skip as an invitation to other reviewers to grab their chance.

share|improve this answer

The system cannot possibly know your areas of expertise. A post that was outrageously wrong in the eyes of a quorum of the qualified may look merely half-baked to someone else. Further, one of the points of the honeypot system is to encourage people to take reviewing seriously. One aspect of taking it seriously is to say to oneself: 'this is completely outside of my expertise. Badges or no badges, bad, good, or indifferent, I'm leaving this for someone else.'

share|improve this answer
    
Sure, but you need no technical expertise to know that ........................... is an answer that needs action, and skipping that item would surely be the wrong thing to do. –  Kate Gregory Feb 22 '13 at 20:58

You must log in to answer this question.

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