Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

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
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 .