What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 150 Stack Exchange communities.

Related: Editing a Low Quality question is an implicit "looks good"; it shouldn't be

I just failed an audit in the Low Quality review queue. This one to be precise.

Here's a screenshot.

review audit failure

The question in question has multiple miscapitalised words; "please help" appended and some useless information. Editing is a perfectly valid response in the Low Quality queue.

What's slightly galling is that edit is an implicit looks good; as I prove in this question and can back up with this recent example.

Why is an edit a Looks Good when not being audited and not one when doing an audit?

share|improve this question
Given the fact that the question is not deleted, closed, and has lots of downvotes, I think the audit actually wanted you to say it looks good, even though this post clearly needs quite a lot of editing. – Servy Feb 19 '13 at 17:11
I recognise that @Servy; I can prove that "edit" == "looks good". I don't believe it should but I'm using that information to edit the question; it needs it and I don't want to delete it. I'm beginning to think the edit button should just be removed. – ben is uǝq backwards Feb 19 '13 at 17:12
I think it should be closed as opinion based – Cole Johnson Aug 15 '13 at 5:20

1 Answer 1

up vote 11 down vote accepted

Edits should not count as failures when the audit is a known-good post. While editing a train-wreck of a question or non-answer is probably a waste of time, even small improvements to an already-good post can be useful.

And as you say, edits are normally counted as a strong vote of confidence in the post. So counting them as failures when the audit contains something of quality makes no sense.

Marking this as a bug. And, sorry for the confusion!


This is fixed now – editing an audit post that we know to be good is now considered an audit pass, rather than a failure.

share|improve this answer
@Emmett, if editing when it looks good is a pass, and presumably editing when it looks bad is a pass, what's to stop people using edit as a catch-all pass method? – staticbeast Mar 7 '13 at 19:23
Editing known-bad posts in the LQ queue will fail the review, @staticbeast. By and large, these posts are beyond help. – Shog9 Mar 7 '13 at 19:33
Excellent, just checking it wasn't a two steps forward, one step back situation. – staticbeast Mar 7 '13 at 20:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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