Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 153 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

I recently got this question on a review audit.

Although I agree with what is being said in the Answer, I don't think it is an Answer. Shouldn't it be a comment instead?

I obviously failed, as I was about to flag the post as "not an answer", and was about to comment on the answer to explain why I flagged it.

I would not have flagged it, if the user would have made his comment, but answered the question in a second part of his Answer.

I downvoted the answer, as I'm assuming that audit questions are just based upon the amount of upvotes. I'm afraid that's the only way to solve this?

share|improve this question
Unfortunately, often upvotes resemble the community's agreement to a certain statement rather than an "answers" usefulness or if it even does answer the question. The same seems to be the case here. – nijansen Sep 13 '13 at 14:15
That's exactly what it happened to me a couple of minutes ago (same question)! I was about to flag it as "not an answer", but I failed the auditing as soon as I pressed "flag". I'm a bit puzzled by the fact that an high quality comment can be "passed" as an answer only because it has many upvotes. After all, if it weren't an auditing, I could have flagged it before anyone could have a chance to upvote it, and maybe it wouldn't have had any chance to get upvoted at all. I understand auditing is an automatic process, but this specific test could scare reviewers from doing the right thing. – Lorenzo Donati Sep 13 '13 at 18:34
up vote 9 down vote accepted

I do agree that this should probably be a comment. But audits are chosen with answers that have never been downvoted nor flagged and have 5+ upvotes (and upvotes are reaaaaally subjectives so!). There are a few threads about adding a human factor to audits, but this has not been implemented yet.

Just don't take it too bad, "bad audits" happen and as long as you don't miss them too often, it's not a big deal!

share|improve this answer
Thanks for the answer! It was my first audit miss. Am I on a blacklist now? :) – Joris Van Regemortel Sep 13 '13 at 14:18
@Joris Don't worry! Unless you repetitively miss them, it won't matters!! – Hugo Dozois Sep 13 '13 at 14:23
The criteria is actually somewhat different for first-post audits. For starters, it's +10 or more. – Shog9 Sep 13 '13 at 14:56

It seems to me there should be an ability to dispute an audit somehow. Perhaps flagging a disputed audit for review, allowing comments to be included. Granted I know that having a 100% record isn't a requirement, but they should be kept to quality levels anyways.

Also, maybe if a certain percentage of people fail the same audit question, the question should be tossed?

share|improve this answer

While I agree that this was an unnecessarily difficult audit, and that there may well be valid reasons to flag an answer like that...

I have to dispute a couple of things.

  1. This is not a comment. Comments are intended for transient clarifications and corrections - they are not meant to be used for any and all content that someone feels is undeserving of answer votes. Convert to comment is not intended as a rep-denial mechanism.

  2. This may actually be a reasonably useful answer. I know it doesn't give the asker what he asked for, but that's not always wise. The asker was doing some pretty crazy stuff, and looking for a way to do more of it - sometimes, a good teacher has to say "NO".

Just things to keep in mind in the future.

share|improve this answer
Sometimes, a good teacher says "No", but a better teacher says "No, do this instead..." – apaul34208 Sep 13 '13 at 16:31
The alternative in this case is to do it in the obvious fashion that everyone learns first, before they get seduced by the Ternary Operator of Babylon. While it certainly wouldn't hurt, I don't think the answer needs to be deleted just because the author failed to demonstrate the syntax for if... – Shog9 Sep 13 '13 at 16:41
I agreed with the Shog before reading his answer? Oh what is this world coming to? – animuson Sep 13 '13 at 17:02
I'm not questioning whether that specific answer was appropriate. I'm questioning the fact that such tricky auditing may scare off honest reviewers from good practices. What if, in a real situation, the reviewer, for fear of a bad audit, let a plain comment be posted as an answer? After all some comments sometimes are upvoted only for their flamboyant tone, so such a comment posted as an answer could get a chance to get an high upvote score, while still being low quality in content. Auditing should motivate reviewers not to be lazy, not to ignore things. – Lorenzo Donati Sep 13 '13 at 18:44
There's always a chance of this, @Lorenzo. That's why the threshold for using such answers as audits is so high. There are occasional audits that are simply too close to call to be effective in their purpose, but philosophically, I feel that it is dishonest to use criteria other than "this is what the community feels is acceptable" for such things - it is the standards of the greater population of users that must be upheld, after all. – Shog9 Sep 13 '13 at 18:58
@Shog9 Ok. This makes sense. But wouldn't it be useful to add a less "scary" message when such tricky audits are failed, explaining the reviewer that (s)he is not a moron, but s(he) has failed a tricky audit and give her/him some more guidance about how to review such answers? This IMHO would encourage reviewers to improve their skills. I don't know if the system allows that to be automated though. – Lorenzo Donati Sep 13 '13 at 19:04
That... Could be tricky, @Lorenzo; we're just not set up for basing anything off of past audits right now (most audits are not re-used very often). Improving the default guidance is always something we're open to though. – Shog9 Sep 14 '13 at 2:00
@Shog9 I see. Thanks for the clarification! (BTW, Nice pun :-) – Lorenzo Donati Sep 14 '13 at 7:09
this was an unnecessarily difficult audit --- I would rather say that this was a bad audit or less strongly a misleading audit. – pabouk Oct 11 '13 at 12:47
@Shog9 Stumbled upon this audit which should be comment IMO. – CRUSADER Nov 18 '13 at 15:38
I disagree - that's rather an important answer, @CRUSADER. – Shog9 Nov 18 '13 at 16:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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