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 think I passed an edit-review audit today. I rejected something that was so horrible I was sure it was a honeypot. But nothing happened. I checked in the history and yes, it was an audit. I can't find it now, to link to it, but I found another one that I didn't even notice at the time. The one that I went back and looked at had a more memorable edit-comment than the one I've linked to.

So, if you pass the audit there is no "congratulations" as there is with the other audits. Should there be? What happens if you fail?

share|improve this question
1  
Related: You can hit your browser's "Back" button to go back and view the results of your review. I do this when I suspect that a review was an audit and no 'success' notification comes up. –  Andrew Barber Mar 5 '13 at 22:02

2 Answers 2

We now give feedback after all audits, pass or fail.

share|improve this answer
2  
This is great! Thank you so much! Also, you probably want to mark the corresponding feature request as status-completed. :-) Cheers! –  Joce Mar 8 '13 at 4:08

If you fail, you get a message along the lines of "This was an audit and you FAILED, please read carefully next time.". In my case, I was trying to edit something that needed improving anyway even before the spam, but looking back, was fairly minor, and should have been rejected then editied seperately.

The review process also doesn't give positive feedback for other normal reviews, it only warns when there is a problem.

share|improve this answer
2  
no, I have seen "congratulations this was only a test" on other reviews. Are you saying you saw the FAILED message when clicking Improve on a suggested edit? –  Kate Gregory Feb 5 '13 at 13:02
    
@KateGregory Yes, it told me I should have rejected it instead. I can't remember the exact text though. –  Deanna Feb 5 '13 at 13:38
1  
I believe the honeypots are supposed to be posts that don't need any editing and are then vandalized with random stuff. They would have to be very confident that Improve would never be right. You might want to include a link to that one so the honeypot-making process can be refined –  Kate Gregory Feb 5 '13 at 13:51
    
@KateGregory Done. Looking back, I probably should have rejected it :) –  Deanna Feb 5 '13 at 15:11
3  
Yeah, in general just reject edits that do absolutely nothing good to the original post, even if the post itself does need some work. You can always open it up separately to edit, but rejecting out of hand ensures that, should something happen, the bad edit isn't sitting around blocking good ones from being made. –  Shogging through the snow Mar 5 '13 at 22:28

You must log in to answer this question.

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