6

I know this was asked here, but nothing was ever changed in the system. Why should I be locked out from reviews for a week for trying to improve something? Although I know in my failed audit that the edit was not salvageable, some original posts need editing, which I would do, unchecking the "helpful" box.

When you are presented with an edited post audit and you click "Reject," you must give a reason before you pass/fail. Why should this be any different?

6
  • 1
    More or less the same case as this: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/194110/…
    – Bart
    Commented Aug 22, 2013 at 13:35
  • 1
    In a situation like this, but when the original post requires improvement, I would roll it back first, and edit that.
    – Mooseman
    Commented Aug 22, 2013 at 14:06
  • 1
    Why? Just reject, or skip. These are obvious audit.
    – Bart
    Commented Aug 22, 2013 at 14:09
  • 1
    Why would it be better protocol to click the title to go to the post page and edit it there, instead of clicking "Improve," rolling it back, and unchecking the "Useful" box?
    – Mooseman
    Commented Aug 22, 2013 at 14:12
  • @Mooseman are you asking why you can't make real edits to the original post from inside the audit? Or are you asking why should trying to edit cause you to fail since you can undo the edit from the queue? Commented Aug 22, 2013 at 14:41
  • 1
    @psubsee2003 The second one. Is there a reason I should go back to the post page to fix it other than not failing the audit? The audit should fail if you attempt to submit an edit without rolling back the post and/or leaving the "Useful" box checked.
    – Mooseman
    Commented Aug 22, 2013 at 17:15

0