Timeline for Some posts from users who are not "new" users (e.g., one with over 620 answers & about 18,000 rep.) ending up in the First Posts queue
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2020 at 22:18 | history | edited | John Omielan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Remove a couple of paragraphs which aren't particularly pertinent.
|
| Feb 17, 2020 at 22:05 | vote | accept | John Omielan | ||
| Feb 17, 2020 at 22:02 | comment | added | John Omielan | @Tom Thanks for your feedback. I realize now what was going on, but didn't read carefully enough earlier to see that. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 21:57 | comment | added | Tom | The review results "Review audit passed [..]" tell us that detail. Regarding "none of them should have been put there", when they were normal reviews, then yes, but the system selected them as positive posts and put them into the "first post" queue to check if the reviewer pays attention. The poster will be anonymized as well, so the reviewer won't see the reputation anyway. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 21:57 | answer | added | animusonStaffMod | timeline score: 15 | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 21:54 | history | edited | John Omielan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add some more details.
|
| Feb 17, 2020 at 21:51 | history | edited | animusonStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 17, 2020 at 21:50 | history | edited | John Omielan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 455 characters in body
|
| Feb 17, 2020 at 21:50 | comment | added | Tom | Well, the "first post" is a link to the reviewand you should check them, those were review audits. The posts got selected as audits and reviewers had to pass them. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 21:48 | comment | added | John Omielan | @Jenayah It's an interesting idea. However, having two accounts merged definitely didn't happen to me at least. | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 21:47 | comment | added | Jenayah | Gut feeling: any chance two accounts got merged? | |
| Feb 17, 2020 at 21:46 | history | asked | John Omielan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |