30

Today I failed yet another review audit (and was subsequently banned) while reviewing first posts. It was a perfectly good post, and I intended to comment on it to point out the name of what they were looking for, as I did not have enough knowledge to provide a full answer.

When I clicked the comment button, I received the following page: audit failed image

Is there a reason clicking comment fails a review audit? There are many good questions that I would comment on if I believed I had information that hadn't been posted before. An attempt to bring new information to the table on a good question seems like something that should not be needlessly punished.

Is it discouraged to add a comment if you have something to contribute that is not worthy of a full answer?

Improve this question
4
  • 3
    possible duplicate of Clicking "Add comment" fails review audit
    – michaelb958--GoFundMonica
    Commented Sep 12, 2013 at 4:30
  • 3
    Not quite a duplicate. That question deals with someone who failed a bad review by clicking comment, and doesn't discuss the proper protocol for leaving comments.
    – Matt Bryant
    Commented Sep 12, 2013 at 4:34
  • For now, I'd say: vote, then comment. Or: go to the page, and comment there.
    – John Dvorak
    Commented Sep 12, 2013 at 5:29
  • 2
    In this case, since there were answers, you should first have clicked through to the thread and checked whether your comment was covered by the existing answers. But in general I agree: it can be perfectly appropriate to leave a comment. And even in this specific case it would have been legitimate to read the whole thread, see that what you wanted to say in your comment wasn't covered, and go back to the review tab and leave your comment.
    – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'
    Commented Sep 21, 2013 at 22:30

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
13

As far as I can tell, audits in First Posts are designed based on assumption that algorithm for known good items automatically selects posts that are so perfect that no comments are needed at all.

Above assumption is absurd, plain and simple. Such posts are impossible to pick even manually because no one can reliably tell that post doesn't need comments.

I think this is yet another facet of a known design mistake in reviews audits:

The only way to increase review count in First Posts and Late Answers queues is to click specific button(s) like I'm Done or No Action Needed1 - as long as this did not happen, it is wrong to assume test completed.

Not to mention that robo reviewers who are supposed to fail such an audit would hardly ever bother commenting; these guys are supposed to thoughtlessly click buttons aren't they? as opposed to thorough reviewers who indeed may spot something in the post and wish to comment about it.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    overall, "known good" audits in First Posts and Late Answers are as if designed specifically to punish thorough reviewers - those who can spot things worth commenting, editing, flagging. Robo types would likely hop over these "audits" with ease, by thoughtlessly clicking No Action Needed
    – gnat
    Commented Sep 22, 2013 at 7:12
  • 4
    it would be nice to have some [average review time] x [audit failure rate] per-queue statistics. If there's a negative correlation, the audit system should probably be revisited.
    – John Dvorak
    Commented Sep 22, 2013 at 10:01
  • @JanDvorak yeah I think it would be interesting to see how much time is spent on average by reviewers who fail known good audits in First Posts. Comparing these stats to average time spent in reviews by those who have been banned for failing known bad audits would be interesting, too
    – gnat
    Commented Sep 22, 2013 at 11:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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