Meta Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for meta-discussion of the Stack Exchange family of Q&A websites. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I just got tripped up in the /review queue on this question
It showed up in the Re-Open queue, and seemed terribly written, and overly broad, so I voted to keep it closed. The audit notification alerted me that there were no major problems with the question.
Was I being overly harsh, or should this not have been used as an example of a question without major problems?
Was I being overly harsh, or should this not have been used as an example of a question without major problems?
It's a lousy example, albeit one that could've been edited and not closed. I kinda think 5 votes is too low a bar for "pure gold" on SO.
If an item in a review audit can generate a real discussion on meta, and gather mixed upvotes/downvotes, then it's a terrible audit question. The goal of an audit question isn't to see if you can adequately defend your nuanced opinion; it's to make sure you're awake. It's like putting an essay exam where a pop quiz to make sure you're paying attention should be.
The question is specific, its goals are clear.
The question is weak, as the author posts no framework for how the question should be solved other than the tags. Accepting the tags are correct, I disagree that it is overly broad.
In this context, closing might have been harsh, but once it had been closed, reopening seems improper, so your decision seems correct and perhaps the appropriateness of this audit should be further scrutinized.
