I come across this comment while reviewing a suggested edit audit:

a very rude comment

I don't think system-generated messages should contain such language. Can they be chosen more carefully, please?

  • 8
    What did it say when you passed the audit?
    – random
    Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 17:11
  • 8
    It sometimes gets frustrated, as it can't leave its cage.
    – Oded
    Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 17:13
  • 3
    another reason to hate the edit audit reviews I suppose. Still think we are not doing these right Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 17:13
  • 4
    It's Won't's fault: Stop using real accounts in suggested edit audits
    – yannis
    Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 17:16
  • @Kate I think the edit audits are the best of the audits. I've never seen one that could be disputed. The other queue audits though...
    – jball
    Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 17:27
  • 2
    Oh yeah, I remember the user who attempted the edit this was based on. That guy was fun. I suppose when you seed these based on actual edits, you're eventually going to pull one from a troll. Maybe a little keyword filtering could keep titles like this out. Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 17:31
  • 4
    @jball that's not my measure of a good audit. A good audit identifies bad reviewers without upsetting good ones or causing them to stop reviewing. I understand some people would fail an edit review that consisted of adding the word AUDIT 5 times in the body of the post with a summary comment that said "click REJECT if you're actually reading this because this is an audit" but I would prefer that to the gibberish and occasional swearing that happens now. What I really want is meta.stackexchange.com/questions/168374/… Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 17:31
  • @BradLarson The audit edits are not based on actual edits. Not sure about the edit description though.
    – yannis
    Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 17:44
  • 3
    @Yannis - Sorry, meant the descriptions. Those are based on ones from actual edits. Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 17:51
  • @Kate, just to clarify, I'm not saying they are good, just that they're the least bad of the bunch. I think minimizing false positivies while still catching robo reviewers is more important than many other people do here, so I get that when I say best, it's not a universal thing. Anyhow, the suggested edits is the best in terms of false positives. The offensive potential should be mitigated though. Aside, I fully support your idea of bringing in a human factor to review selections.
    – jball
    Commented Nov 26, 2013 at 17:58


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .