What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

I was asked to review the following answer by a new user: Call .java file from .html file in android (note java, not js), and so I attempted to edit the answer, as it was technically accurate, but was badly phrased and incomplete.

On attempting to edit the question I was informed that it had been deleted, and so I marked it as no further action needed (as action had already been taken). I was then told I had failed an audit question.

My question is this - at what point should we no longer attempt to salvage an answer which is technically accurate, especially when we have has to do some (admittedly not much) research to verify its accuracy?

share|improve this question
    
Did you try to edit the question or the answer? –  hims056 Jan 30 '13 at 10:43
1  
There's nothing accurate about that answer, see: developer.android.com/guide/webapps/… –  Yannis Jan 30 '13 at 10:49
    
@hims056 the answer, as that's what I was supposed to be reviewing –  theheadofabroom Jan 30 '13 at 10:52
    
@Yannis that's javascript, not java –  theheadofabroom Jan 30 '13 at 10:52
    
@BiggAl Read the manual a bit more carefully, it explains how to bind android code (java) with javascript, in order to be able to call it from HTML - the answer your reviewed claims that's impossible. Also check the question itself, the question isn't about if it's possible or not, but why it stopped working when OP updated the SDK. –  Yannis Jan 30 '13 at 10:58
    
@Yannis that still has to be a compiled class, no? In this case it was the question that was confusing by using terminology incorrectly, although I must admit to a brain-fart in not having read the first line very well –  theheadofabroom Jan 30 '13 at 12:14
    
The question's title is horrible indeed, something that was pointed out in a comment (wonder why no one edited it though). Still the answer should answer the question, not just its title. That said, the audit was a bit tricky. –  Yannis Jan 30 '13 at 12:30
    
@BiggAl How did you try to edit it? By clicking the "edit" link via the review page, or did you try to click through to the post itself in order to edit? –  Emmett Jan 30 '13 at 21:15
    
The former, then the latter - the answer no longer exists –  theheadofabroom Jan 31 '13 at 8:29

1 Answer 1

My question is this - at what point should we no longer attempt to salvage an answer which is technically accurate, especially when we have has to do some (admittedly not much) research to verify its accuracy?

In my opinion, there is no predefined limit, you define your own limits. Do you want to try to salvage a post, even if it's terrible? Great, go ahead!

Don't be discouraged by failing that review audit. It was intended for people who blindly click the same button in the review queues, without paying attention to the contents presented to them. The system was probably expecting that you added a comment or flag, instead of editing. Maybe it could also disclose it's an audit as soon as you click the edit button, and let you pass. You can add that as a feature-request, if you wish.

share|improve this answer
    
It was moderator deleted where I think the system considered the action it as a failure because you know, moderators are never wrong. :) –  Jeff Mercado Jan 30 '13 at 15:31
    
I think that answer was added as an audit case exactly because a moderator had previously deleted it. –  bfavaretto Jan 30 '13 at 15:49
    
Ah yes, the dates on the deletion and review tell the tale. It was deleted in the past and the review was fairly recent. –  Jeff Mercado Jan 30 '13 at 17:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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