Timeline for Incorrect audits [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2019 at 5:58 | history | closed |
Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Pierre.Vriens Mureinik Ward - Trying Codidact Robert Longson |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Sep 4, 2019 at 2:30 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 4, 2019 at 5:58 | |||||
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 26, 2014 at 0:51 | comment | added | NobodyNada | I once failed an audit because I was on a mobile device and tried to scroll, but I pushed the "No Action Needed" button by mistake. | |
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:41 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Jan 2, 2014 at 20:11 | answer | added | Mike Cheel | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 5, 2013 at 23:35 | comment | added | CDub | I just failed one as well that I think could have gone either way. All this has done has frustrate me and make me not want to help review for fear that I'll get banned over another questionable audit. Could I have skipped? Sure... But I don't care that much about badges. The bottom line is this "auditing" "system" cannot be black and white. Period. | |
| Nov 29, 2013 at 17:25 | comment | added | Synetech | While I can understand the reason for the audit system, it is clearly not up to snuff. I too failed one because there was no way to pass it (the only options available were to do nothing or skip it; I wasn’t going to skip it because I already checked it out, and since it was already deleted, do nothing was the only logical choice). Worse, the audits are often pointless because many of them are just so plainly obvious. Worst still, the audits are foist on everyone, including high-rep users, as though they are just johnny-come-latelies. ◔_◔ | |
| Jul 16, 2013 at 13:14 | history | edited | gnat |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 20, 2013 at 22:04 | history | edited | Emil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 565 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2013 at 9:15 | vote | accept | Emil | ||
| Feb 6, 2013 at 20:45 | history | edited | Emil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added second example
|
| Feb 6, 2013 at 15:48 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | @TimPost Perhaps? But if you're at a point where you're allowed in the review queue, you should have been around the block enough times to know that this isn't what we're looking for on Stack Exchange. | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 15:32 | comment | added | user50049 | @casperOne I wouldn't quite say clearly. I think you might be juxtaposing your experience erroneously. | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 13:37 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | This answer was clearly not an answer, at best, it was a comment and you should have either skipped it (if unsure) or indicated that it was a bad answer. I get that you want to help, we love that you want to help, but we need audits that are correct. The system is trying to tell you that (and might be overzealous in doing so). That said, we could soften the language here, and possibly make a feature request to have a moderator enable auditing for a user again if we feel that they aren't just being lazy, but really fat fingered, or are obviously improving their audit ability. | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 12:55 | comment | added | ben is uǝq backwards | You have answered 0 questions in sql-server. Whilst this doesn't mean your unknowledgeable about the subject it's an indication. Why did you click No Action Needed rather than Skip? | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 12:39 | history | edited | gnat |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 6, 2013 at 12:00 | answer | added | user50049 | timeline score: 26 | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 11:32 | answer | added | Shadow Wizard | timeline score: 13 | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 10:50 | answer | added | Pablo | timeline score: 6 | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 10:13 | history | edited | Emil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added intro
|
| Feb 6, 2013 at 8:29 | answer | added | Toon Krijthe | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 8:25 | comment | added | nhahtdh | The audit can be defeated easily with userscript... | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 8:13 | comment | added | Toon Krijthe | When in doubt, I now check the original post. This takes a bit more time, but it gives much more information. If that is not conclusive, I use skip. | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 8:10 | history | edited | Emil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Feb 6, 2013 at 8:08 | comment | added | BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod | This is why we can't have nice things. | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 8:05 | history | edited | Mechanical snail | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Feb 6, 2013 at 7:57 | comment | added | Emil | I can assure you I'm paying attention, they're just flat out wrong most cases, and in other cases at least discussable at the very least. There isn't a single "good" or "bad" approach to reviewing, and the audit-system is ruining it in my opinion. | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 7:54 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | These audits are getting out of hand. I thought the whole point was that they were supposed to be blatantly obvious to make sure people were paying attention. Even I failed one yesterday on a tricky one that got converted to a comment... | |
| Feb 6, 2013 at 7:52 | history | asked | Emil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |