33

After failing another audit, I really believe that comments on audits should be considered a neutral action, just like how clicking the link to the full question/answer is not considered. The logic used is equivalent to "you don't need to see the full question if it's good enough, it should be obvious", which is just complete baloney and completely unnatural, opposite to what a normal person would do. Please change the logic of "known good" review audits - it unfairly attacks legitimate reviewers while it does not do much to lower robo-reviewing. Here's the typical example of such an audit:

Example failed audit

As a result of this audit, I got a suspension from the review queue, which I believe is flawed and does not match how genuine reviewers actually would behave in situations such as these - which ultimately is the basis of this feature request.

Improve this question
4
  • @Qantas94Heavy: He was suggesting that the phrase "not do much" could be replaced with "absolutely nothing" without affecting the validity of the last sentence.
    – Bart van Ingen Schenau
    Nov 4, 2013 at 13:17
  • @JanDvorak: go ahead, nothing's stopping you. :)
    – Qantas 94 Heavy
    Nov 4, 2013 at 13:19
  • 2
    I agree, I have wanted to comment with a positive comment or a slight clarification "this doesn't account for [edge case]" and blammo, failed audit. Not right.
    – Kate Gregory
    Nov 4, 2013 at 13:43
  • 1
    Maybe I can fix this with a userscript ;-)
    – John Dvorak
    Nov 4, 2013 at 16:13

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
+50

To get around this you could just comment while in the question area, separately to reviewing.

Although that said, sometimes a comment is required to pass the audit, and there are users who have failed an audit for not commenting.

I do agree with you though, as comments are personal and are not a necessity within the questions or answers, and this should be reflected in the review area to make a logical and consistent system throughout.

How can there be a correct or incorrect course of action when the basis is personal choice?
How can a scripted algorithm determine if a comment is actually necessary or not?
Comments can be either negative or positive, so regardless of a good or bad Q or A one could leave a comment for either scenario, or not at all when a flag or no action will also cover it.

As has been said before, we could do with more info on how to deal with reviews, as I genuinely do not see why or when a comment should be or should not be part of a review.
Either the question or answer is valid and so "nothing to do" or I need to flag or edit it and then "I'm done".

So I agree, and the comments should not be a necessity, and so either:
You can leave one or not within the review area and it's not part of the review/audit;
OR
Leaving one will result in a failed audit, forcing people only comment within the question area not the review area;

Either way is fine, as long as we know we can review accordingly.

Improve this answer
1
  • 10
    the problem isn't that commenting is a matter of choice. Voting is also a matter of choice and voting up a horrible post or voting down a good one could legitimately be seen as failing an audit. The problem is that commenting is seen as "Deciding this post is bad and needs corrective action" - for a known good audit then you fail the audit. But unlike voting or flagging, commenting can be positive or negative, yet the audit mechanism assumes it is negative. I think this is wrong and should be changed
    – Kate Gregory
    Nov 4, 2013 at 18:56

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