On checking the review queue for low quality posts this answer appeared in the queue. It didn't seem to be low quality by the usual standards (I.e. its not to short or with particularly bad content. I checked the edit history and there a weird (presumably accidental) revision that was subsequently rolled back.

I can only assume this first edit triggered the low quality criteria despite being rolled back before I even checked the review queue. Was this the situation, and if so is this intentional? It makes answers that are not particularly bad be mistaken for poor answers and judged accordingly.

The review link is here, if it is of use: http://ux.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/6139

share|improve this question
For reference I saw this in the low quality review queue and recommended deletion on the basis of what I saw. Just after I clicked, though, I twigged that the comments didn't match the answer, so I went back and checked the revision history (hence finding the older revision, and reverting). –  dhmholley Jan 17 '13 at 9:20
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

This is fixed now.

First, to clear up some (very understandable) misconceptions in the other answers: The review queues only show the current version of a post at any given time, and if the post's current "quality" is not beneath the low-quality threshold, then it will not be shown in the Low Quality queue.

Now for the bug: we were failing to recalculate post "quality" after a rollback. Sorry about that.

share|improve this answer
Or in other words, rollback wasn't considered a full scale edit? –  Shadow Wizard Jan 17 '13 at 21:55
So a minor issue was identified, recreated, fixed and deployed in less than 24 hours? Damn, don't let any of my agency's clients know this is possible - we could string this sort of thing out for 3 months, easy! –  JonW Jan 17 '13 at 22:21
add comment

1. What happened

  • Answer
  • Edited by someone else to remove cruft
  • Edited by OP to be some short rant about a virus - presumably triggers low quality review at this point for being short
  • Rolled back by someone else

2. Probably not generalisable

It's not clear that the sequence
edit -> low quality -> revert
results in a good quality post, since low quality is a heuristic algorithm, and although this is very clear in this case for a human, I don't think you can generalise this to a new algorithm that reliably detects whether the previous version was sufficiently different for the SO machine to bury the issue by removing it from the queue.

3. Humans should make the call anyway

Low quality means "looks like it might be a problem - what do you think, humans?". That's absolutely still the case with this sequence of events.

4. Low quality review doesn't mean destroy queue

People should be judging things in the low quality queue entirely on merit. "Huh? This is fine, computer with no common sense!" is exactly the sort of response we need from humans. If leaving something good in the low quality queue is harmful it means the review process is broken.

share|improve this answer
add comment

By the looks of it, The edit that made it low quality was made by the OP's account, and was there long enough for two people to vote to delete it before dhmholley rolled the edit back.

I'm also assuming that the Review queue shows the answer as is instead of as it was at the moment in time that it got put in the review queue (which is a good thing in my opinion).

What probably happened was that the answer entered the queue, and was recommended for deletion at roughly the same time as it was getting rolled back.

share|improve this answer
Yeah, I'm concerned that the queue seems to have shown an answer that used to be low quality but isn't anymore. It certainly was low quality and was dealt with correctly at the time, but by the time I stated looking at the review queue it was no longer low quality so I don't think it should show at that point at all. Otherwise it seems that even if a bad answer is improved it could still show as a low quality post. –  JonW Jan 16 '13 at 23:50
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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