Audit context expectations

I'm not sure where this fits, so I'll just give my feedback here for historical purposes and we'll see where it goes. I just reviewed a first answer and clicked 'Edit' to fix up its issues:

 

Now what I expect is that when that post is shown here, that all of the glaring grammar issues are sorted out. Afterall I did 'pass' my audit because I wanted to edit the thing, right? I don't see any previous editing effort here in the Congrats banner. So just for certain, I go to the answer itself. It's exactly the same. I fix it up. I've passed three audits now following this scenario.

However this seems strange to me. I agree that an edit should count as a pass. You only make that action if you are paying attention to what you are doing, and that's a proactive curative thing to do. PASS. But, as choosing 'Looks Ok' correlates with a relatively large number of upvotes, it feels like 'Edit' should correlate with a good solid previous edit that's cleaned the post up. I have no idea how to tie together this context though. In fact, it's impossible I think.

1. You can't predict what a future edit will really do.

2. A grammatical analysis of a post is process heavy, and on motley sites like these with very specialized syntax and formatting for each, such an analysis is almost certain to flag up perfectly appropriate grammar as incorrect.

We may just have to all agree that this is the best we can do. Sure makes for an odd workflow though.

Audit context expectations

I'm not sure where this fits, so I'll just give my feedback here for historical purposes and we'll see where it goes. I just reviewed a first answer and clicked 'Edit' to fix up its issues: 

Now what I expect is that when that post is shown here, that all of the glaring grammar issues are sorted out. After all I did 'pass' my audit because I wanted to edit the thing, right? I don't see any previous editing effort here in the Congrats banner. So just for certain, I go to the answer itself. It's exactly the same. I fix it up. I've passed three audits now following this scenario.

However this seems strange to me. I agree that an edit should count as a pass. You only make that action if you are paying attention to what you are doing, and that's a proactive curative thing to do. PASS. But, as choosing 'Looks OK' correlates with a relatively large number of upvotes, it feels like 'Edit' should correlate with a good solid previous edit that's cleaned the post up. I have no idea how to tie together this context though. In fact, it's impossible I think.

1. You can't predict what a future edit will really do.

2. A grammatical analysis of a post is process heavy, and on motley sites like these with very specialized syntax and formatting for each, such an analysis is almost certain to flag up perfectly appropriate grammar as incorrect.

We may just have to all agree that this is the best we can do. Sure makes for an odd workflow though.

Audit context expectations

I'm not sure where this fits, so I'll just give my feedback here for historical purposes and we'll see where it goes. I just reviewed a first answer and clicked 'Edit' to fix up its issues:

Now what I expect is that when that post is shown here, that all of the glaring grammar issues are sorted out. Afterall I did 'pass' my audit because I wanted to edit the thing, right? I don't see any previous editing effort here in the Congrats banner. So just for certain, I go to the answer itself. It's exactly the same. I fix it up. I've passed three audits now following this scenario.

However this seems strange to me. I agree that an edit should count as a pass. You only make that action if you are paying attention to what you are doing, and that's a proactive curative thing to do. PASS. But, as choosing 'Looks Ok' correlates with a relatively large number of upvotes, it feels like 'Edit' should correlate with a good solid previous edit that's cleaned the post up. I have no idea how to tie together this context though. In fact, it's impossible I think.

1. You can't predict what a future edit will really do.

2. A grammatical analysis of a post is process heavy, and on motley sites like these with very specialized syntax and formatting for each, such an analysis is almost certain to flag up perfect appropriate grammar as incorrect.

We may just have to all agree that this is the best we can do. Sure makes for an odd workflow though.

Audit context expectations

I'm not sure where this fits, so I'll just give my feedback here for historical purposes and we'll see where it goes. I just reviewed a first answer and clicked 'Edit' to fix up its issues:

Now what I expect is that when that post is shown here, that all of the glaring grammar issues are sorted out. Afterall I did 'pass' my audit because I wanted to edit the thing, right? I don't see any previous editing effort here in the Congrats banner. So just for certain, I go to the answer itself. It's exactly the same. I fix it up. I've passed three audits now following this scenario.

However this seems strange to me. I agree that an edit should count as a pass. You only make that action if you are paying attention to what you are doing, and that's a proactive curative thing to do. PASS. But, as choosing 'Looks Ok' correlates with a relatively large number of upvotes, it feels like 'Edit' should correlate with a good solid previous edit that's cleaned the post up. I have no idea how to tie together this context though. In fact, it's impossible I think.

1. You can't predict what a future edit will really do.

2. A grammatical analysis of a post is process heavy, and on motley sites like these with very specialized syntax and formatting for each, such an analysis is almost certain to flag up perfectly appropriate grammar as incorrect.

We may just have to all agree that this is the best we can do. Sure makes for an odd workflow though.