Timeline for In the review queue, audits should only fail (or pass) you once you actually would take action [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2018 at 21:06 | history | closed | Shog9Mod feature-request Users with the feature-request badge or a synonym can single-handedly close feature-request questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed. | Duplicate of Using the "flag" loophole to pass every review audit | |
| Mar 21, 2018 at 21:06 | history | edited | Shog9Mod |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:52 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Dec 20, 2013 at 12:58 | history | edited | user |
Add 'stackexchange' tag for posterity
|
|
| Dec 17, 2013 at 16:25 | comment | added | OGHaza | On my last failed audit I was specifically thinking at the time "Why would someone want to close this one? - Maybe I'm missing something", check the votes, instant fail. | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:57 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 588 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:54 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @MichaelKjörling - I totally agree - I was just indicating the original answer given to the original question about the same problem on the "flag" button. This doesn't mean that I don't believe that the current behavior is wrong | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:52 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 588 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:47 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 588 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:41 | comment | added | user | @SPArchaeologist There are ways around that, like adding fake votes in the case of an audit, or not showing any vote counts at all even if there are votes on the audit post currently. The problem isn't bringing up the dialog box. The problem is taking action based on incorrect judgment. That is what should be caught by the audit IMO, and it will be even with my suggestion implemented. | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:41 | comment | added | Leeor | +1, suggested it also here - meta.stackexchange.com/questions/169580/… (possible dup) | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:37 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @MichaelKjörling - see below. It has been discussed, at least in part. Anyway, this is the kind of question that should be reasked. Maybe this time they will consider changing this behavior. | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:35 | answer | added | ꓢPArcheon | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:33 | comment | added | user | @JanDvorak I did look, but at least didn't see anything that looked like an obvious duplicate. It's also definitely current, since I failed the audit for that exact reason less than an hour ago. | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:32 | comment | added | John Dvorak | inb4 this gets closed as a countless duplicate | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:26 | answer | added | scrblnrd3 | timeline score: 16 | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:24 | comment | added | ʞunɥdɐpɐɥd | I would love to see this implemented. This is so frustrating. | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:22 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 28 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:22 | comment | added | Jonathan Garber | +1 I often pull up that dialog box to refresh my memory... So do I. It is FAR easier to do this on-demand than to open new tabs to the various information portals whenever I go to the review queue. It is understandable that people get frustrated with wasted clicks in an audit, but I would point out that audits are (or should be) rare. The annoyance of wasted clicks is less (for me, at least) than the annoyance of an audit that I fail simply because it doesn't mesh with my standard workflow. | |
| Dec 17, 2013 at 15:17 | history | asked | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |