Timeline for Review-beta: Obviously good answer in low-quality
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 30, 2012 at 9:12 | comment | added | Denys Séguret | i find the fact the team is doing this reassuring. I always hoped such studies were done. As I hope you record and study other signs of bad reviewing (like people voting for or against closing as duplicate questions without opening them). | |
| Aug 18, 2012 at 17:53 | comment | added | Kevin Montrose | @Martin This is currently only enabled on SO, it will eventually be on everywhere. | |
| Aug 18, 2012 at 12:51 | comment | added | Martin | Is this done only or SO, or on all sites in SE network? | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 17:18 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | @KevinMontrose That's more reassuring, now stop clicking the audit button! | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 17:14 | comment | added | Kevin Montrose | @casperOne - this is done "on demand", audit tasks don't exist if real ones don't. While in theory it's possible for the queue to be nothing but audit tasks (requires people working through the queue, detecting audits, and intentionally taking no action) it would require a dedicated group of users intentionally doing that, with a scale of collusion that's probably impractical. If it actually happens we can pretty easily remove audit tasks once they're too common, using the same mechanism we do to remove questions that get quality improving edits from outside the queue. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 17:10 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | @AndrewBarber I'm not sure I agree. Given that there are 35K+ low-quality posts on SO for review, do we really need extra work made for us? That said, if they're doing it just for the time being so they can see if it will be effective, that's ok, but throwing stuff in later that's obvious is just making work where work doesn't have to be made. Kind of like Community flags (but I won't go there)... | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 16:55 | history | edited | Kevin Montrose | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
this wasn't a one time thing; doesn't mean I can't spell in the first place.
|
| Aug 14, 2012 at 13:20 | vote | accept | Dustin | ||
| Aug 13, 2012 at 21:04 | comment | added | Andrew Barber | That sounds like a GREAT idea; to keep people from just smashing the same button to just "go through" them... like the problem we have with suggested edits... | |
| Aug 13, 2012 at 21:03 | history | edited | Tim Stone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Aug 13, 2012 at 20:56 | history | edited | Kevin Montrose | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 202 characters in body
|
| Aug 13, 2012 at 20:51 | comment | added | Dustin | ARE YOU SERIOUS | |
| Aug 13, 2012 at 20:50 | history | answered | Kevin Montrose | CC BY-SA 3.0 |