What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 127 Stack Exchange communities.

I know this was asked here, but nothing was ever changed in the system. Why should I be locked out from reviews for a week for trying to improve something? Although I know in my failed audit that the edit was not salvageable, some original posts need editing, which I would do, unchecking the "helpful" box.

When you are presented with an edited post audit and you click "Reject," you must give a reason before you pass/fail. Why should this be any different?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by hims056, animuson Aug 22 '13 at 16:46

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

More or less the same case as this: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/194110/… –  Bart Aug 22 '13 at 13:35
In a situation like this, but when the original post requires improvement, I would roll it back first, and edit that. –  Mooseman Aug 22 '13 at 14:06
Why? Just reject, or skip. These are obvious audit. –  Bart Aug 22 '13 at 14:09
Why would it be better protocol to click the title to go to the post page and edit it there, instead of clicking "Improve," rolling it back, and unchecking the "Useful" box? –  Mooseman Aug 22 '13 at 14:12
@Mooseman are you asking why you can't make real edits to the original post from inside the audit? Or are you asking why should trying to edit cause you to fail since you can undo the edit from the queue? –  psubsee2003 Aug 22 '13 at 14:41
@psubsee2003 The second one. Is there a reason I should go back to the post page to fix it other than not failing the audit? The audit should fail if you attempt to submit an edit without rolling back the post and/or leaving the "Useful" box checked. –  Mooseman Aug 22 '13 at 17:15
add comment