What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 128 Stack Exchange communities.

Is there a way to challenge "failed" audits? The system has failed me a few times already, where I thought the questions/answers were admissible, even if low quality:

http://stackoverflow.com/review/first-posts/2648627

http://stackoverflow.com/review/late-answers/2605021

http://stackoverflow.com/review/first-posts/2604955

So is there any way to challenge these?

share|improve this question
21  
Really... no action needed?... –  Bart Aug 3 '13 at 16:20
    
There's not really a way to challenge except bringing it up here and that is not going to get you anything but understanding why you failed the audit, or if it is indeed a bad audit question. If you want to make an argument why all 3 were "no action needed", please make it –  psubsee2003 Aug 3 '13 at 16:23
    
@Bart, yes, the answer has horrible formatting and little substance, but how do you flag that? There is no "Needs better editing" or "Elaborate further" flag. That answer could be useful, or even correct. –  Arman H Aug 3 '13 at 16:25
5  
Are you saying there is also no "edit" button @ArmanH? Editing would be the very first thing I'd do. –  Bart Aug 3 '13 at 16:26
3  
@ArmanH why in the world would you flag "Needs better editing" or "elaborate further". The mods can't do anything you can't do yourself. The appropriate action is downvote, comment, and/or edit. –  psubsee2003 Aug 3 '13 at 16:27
    
@psubsee2003, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I wanted to know if there was such a feature that I may have overlooked, because there are some times I do not agree with the system. –  Arman H Aug 3 '13 at 16:27
    
@ArmanH well, like I said, the only feature is to ask it here. We can help you understand. –  psubsee2003 Aug 3 '13 at 16:30
    
@Bart, Of course there is "Edit", but I don't always want to/have time to edit a review. Is it, in principle, NOT OK to allow an answer to pass that has decent content, even if horrible formatting? My point is that sometimes there is nothing terribly wrong with an answer/question that warrants flagging. I thought these were examples of such cases. –  Arman H Aug 3 '13 at 16:32
    
It's not okay to say everything is fine with a post (which is what "No Action Needed" means) when it is badly formatted and badly written –  Old Checkmark Aug 3 '13 at 16:34
12  
@ArmanH If you don't have the time or desire to fix content, please don't review. Especially not for first post queues. Horrible formatting harms the site. Not only in regards to the post itself, but also regarding the picture it paints for other users. So please put in the time. Or don't review if you can't. I'm sure you mean well, and perhaps this might all come off as a bit harsh, but we desperately need good reviewers. So much so that, because a lot of reviewers suck, actual good reviewers have given up reviewing because their voice didn't matter. Crap got through. Please do your best. –  Bart Aug 3 '13 at 16:35
add comment

2 Answers 2

No, there is no way to really dispute a failed audit. Not in the sense that this failure can be undone. However, if you see bad audits come along, you can report them here. Sometimes there are truly bad examples. Or if you don't understand why you've failed an audit (i.e. what makes it so bad) you can always ask for clarification. But you better make sure it's a poor or hard to understand audit.

For example, there is no way that you can argue that this answer looks just fine. Even if you ignore the validity of the content, surely that could do with an edit. That would be the bare minimum.

If those are the standards you apply to your reviews, I would kindly request you dial it up a notch. Reviews are in place for a reason: quality control, among others. And we need all the good reviews we can get.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for clarifying. I'm not trying to "undo" the audits, just curious if there was a way to challenge them automatically. I agree that the answer looks horrible, but it does provide useful information. I've seen many instances when the answer consists of one-lines just like that, and they pass just fine. –  Arman H Aug 3 '13 at 16:38
    
I've seen questions or answers with 1 or 2 downvotes because of bad formatting, or questionable grammar, but that didn't necessarily make them bad content-wise. My question now is whether editing is always required during an audit? Sometimes I'm weary of editing code I'm not familiar with (this example was not the case: I know XML, but I skipped edit on this question because I was in a rush). –  Arman H Aug 3 '13 at 16:39
    
@ArmanH I hate those one-line no-explanation answers. And I wish I had the means to do something against them except downvoting. But you can't have it all. As for code editing, I would keep that to formatting. If the code itself is wrong, just leave a comment indicating so. As for grammar, spelling, abuse of formatting, etc. I would say: yes, if you take the time to review, take the time to fix it. –  Bart Aug 3 '13 at 16:41
2  
P.s. for some glimpse into the reasons behind my possible fierce response, have a look at this. –  Bart Aug 3 '13 at 16:44
3  
@ArmanH one other item. If you see a bad post but don't know what to do about it (not familiar with the topic for example), use the "Skip" button. "No Action Needed" is not the same as skip. –  psubsee2003 Aug 3 '13 at 16:50
    
Good to know. Reading through the link you posted. Your response was not fierce or harsh, I appreciate the information. –  Arman H Aug 3 '13 at 17:02
add comment

Borrowing from your comment, here is the main problem.

Of course there is "Edit", but I don't always want to/have time to edit a review.

If you don't have time to fix problems with low quality questions, you should not be using the queue. The whole point is to identify and fix issues. If you don't have time for that, just leave it for somebody else or for another time.

The point is not to get through the queue as fast as you can. The point is to do something to improve the situation. When you run across something obviously low quality you should not be asking yourself whether it might be "admissible", but whether or not there is anything that could be done to improve it.

All of the cases you list as examples clearly could have been improved with edits. At least they could have used a downvote and comments might be in order to explain the various issues. There is also a "low quality" flag for when things are hopelessly low and cannot be fixed with an edit.

If the point of your meta post is to dispute these audit results, I would say "denied". The audit system seems to be doing its job in catching you not doing your job. You should take this opportunity to review what you are supposed to be doing with those queues and learn to do it properly.

The first-post queue is not just a spam filter, the point of going through it should be to find ways to bring low quality posts up to par. By selecting "no action needed" on clearly low quality posts you have legitimately flunked the audit.

share|improve this answer
    
Definitely not trying to "dispute" anything here; I was wondering if there was a feature built into the system. The whole point is to identify and fix issues. I always flag Q/As I find inappropriate, vague, off-topic, harmful, etc. I did not realize editing was as big a part of it. Rather, I didn't think that low quality formatting = "low quality post" One thing I never did (and won't do) is to down-vote for formatting, because I don't find that helpful. But thanks for a thorough explanation. –  Arman H Aug 3 '13 at 16:46
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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