Timeline for You have failed too many recent review audits
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Jan 10, 2014 at 15:33 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @Wooble I'd love to see the data behind setting the auto-ban thresholds. It would be interesting to see if robo-reviewers ever outnumbered the people paying attention, and how much the proportion of robos has changed over time. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 15:30 | comment | added | Wooble | I'm pretty sure I'd have been banned by now for disagreeing with the robo-approvers if there were a low threshhold. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 15:29 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @Wooble They probably don't tell us because they know we'd blab it all in exchange for a few Meta points. ;) | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 15:25 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @Leeor This is only from today. If these count towards the ban at all, I'm sure it's calibrated to not trip on the average number of "wrong" reviews, but a significantly high number of them. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 15:23 | comment | added | Bill the Lizard Mod | @Devolus I would definitely approve both of those. If an edit fixes a typo and leaves behind a bunch of other stuff that needs fixed, go ahead and reject it. If it significantly improves the post by fixing code formatting or fixing a dozen minor typos, I'd approve it. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 15:20 | comment | added | Wooble | It's not encouraging that even the mods don't know how the review bans work ;) | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 15:15 | comment | added | Duncan Jones | @Leeor I completely agree. I'm often the sole voice saying "too minor", while the robots hit "Approve". Every approver on that review you linked to should get a little ban - that was awful. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 15:15 | comment | added | Devolus | One problem I definitely have is that it there is no clear guide how to review minor edits like fixing typos. In such cases I often see different rulings than mine, like in this case: stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3766845 or stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3774203. I guess in the future I will just kip those. | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 15:10 | comment | added | Leeor | Oh god, I hope not - I often reject bad edits and they later get approved by new people that don't really know what they're doing (fresh example) - am I about to get banned? :) | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 14:57 | history | answered | Bill the LizardMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |