16

https://stackoverflow.com/review/reopen/2976851

Would you have failed that reopen audit? I actually commented on one of the answers on the same day the question was originally asked. I was positive that this question had immediately been closed because it was a duplicate of the following question.

Aside from it being a duplicate, I considered it to be very low quality to begin with, and it demonstrated no effort. Such a question could have easily been testing as one of the comments stated.

Additionally, after failing the audit, I was given the usual: "STOP, look - this was a high quality post..." or something like that. It is clearly not a high quality post. Which leads me to assume that audits are automatically generated by the system.. is that true?

  • 1
    I added your sentence back that was the basis for the first half of my answer. If you weren't aware, it was a valid part of the question. – psubsee2003 Sep 22 '13 at 21:58
8

Audits are automatically generated by the system. The exact criteria for the close queue have not been published to the best of my knowledge, however the current criteria for the reopen queue are (as defined by Shog):

  • Recently asked
  • Score between 5 and 15 (inclusive)
  • Never locked, migrated, or deleted
  • No close votes or downvotes, ever
  • (On Stack Overflow) at least 100 views

So it stands to reason that the criteria for the close vote queue are similar since the close and reopen review queues are very related.

It deserves mentioning those that the criteria are always being tweaked and may be changed in the near future. In fact, there is currently a question on meta inviting discussing modifications to the criteria so it may change soon.

It has also been said that once any action that counters one of the above criteria will remove the post as being a candidate for a future review audit, so the proper course of action when you encounter a disputable review is to perform a counter action (so a "good" posts in a close/reopen queue will be removed when you vote to close). If you don't know if it is disputable however, you can ask a question here to get feedback as you've done here.

As for this specific review audit, I agree that it is not a good review audit and I have voted to close, however, because it met the aforementioned criteria when the audit was generated, it was selected. But once you voted to close it outside of the queue, it was immediately not longer eligible for being a future audit post.

  • 3
    It's shocking that some of these posts are getting scores of +5 and higher. – Adam Rackis Sep 22 '13 at 21:17
2

Regardless of whether the subject could have been easily tested or not, some attempt could (and should) have been made to test at all, and the research and results of such published with the question. I think you're right, not only should this have been left closed, I would have opted to delete it given any opportunity to do so (if no further effort was being made to give the post some substance and therefore improve its suitability to at least above the standard of unsuitable.)

  • Yea, it currently only has 2 close votes. I am assuming the second one was you? – Josh Crozier Sep 22 '13 at 18:54
  • 2
    Affirmative. It deserves to die a digital death. – Grant Thomas Sep 22 '13 at 18:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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