19

Related: Editing a Low Quality question is an implicit "looks good"; it shouldn't be

I just failed an audit in the Low Quality review queue. This one to be precise.

Here's a screenshot.

review audit failure

The question in question has multiple miscapitalised words; "please help" appended and some useless information. Editing is a perfectly valid response in the Low Quality queue.

What's slightly galling is that edit is an implicit looks good; as I prove in this question and can back up with this recent example.

Why is an edit a Looks Good when not being audited and not one when doing an audit?

4
11

Edits should not count as failures when the audit is a known-good post. While editing a train-wreck of a question or non-answer is probably a waste of time, even small improvements to an already-good post can be useful.

And as you say, edits are normally counted as a strong vote of confidence in the post. So counting them as failures when the audit contains something of quality makes no sense.

Marking this as a bug. And, sorry for the confusion!

EDIT

This is fixed now – editing an audit post that we know to be good is now considered an audit pass, rather than a failure.

3
  • 2
    @Emmett, if editing when it looks good is a pass, and presumably editing when it looks bad is a pass, what's to stop people using edit as a catch-all pass method? Mar 7 '13 at 19:23
  • 1
    Editing known-bad posts in the LQ queue will fail the review, @staticbeast. By and large, these posts are beyond help.
    – Shog9
    Mar 7 '13 at 19:33
  • 1
    Excellent, just checking it wasn't a two steps forward, one step back situation. Mar 7 '13 at 20:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .