11

I was testing something out with suggested edits so I went into the review queue and picked the first edit. After reading it, I planned on rejecting it because it seemed to drastically change the post. But in my experiment I wanted to click on "Improve"...so I did. Of course it turned out to be an audit! So I failed for clicking "Improve" instead of "Reject", which I ultimately planned on doing after cancelling out of it because I really didn't plan on improving it.

This isn't a huge deal because I don't think I fail too many audits. So my question is, should you not actually fail when clicking "Improve" until you click to save the edit. That way, there is still the chance to cancel out of it and skip or reject? This might be minor and not worth the trouble but I thought it was interesting that I came across it. I don't expect this happens too often but it seems like an easy change.

Edit

Now I just experienced an audit where I rejected the edit but still had to say why before it said I passed. This still seems minor but inconsistent with my last audit experience. If it is going to fail for clicking "Improve" but not allowing the action to be finished (by cancelling which should result in a pass or by submitting the improvement) then shouldn't it also pass as soon as the reject button is clicked?

Improve this question
11
  • 2
    Similar: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/179651/… Had issue when clicking "close" just to see what/where the votes were even though had no intention of closing... and fail!
    – MikeSmithDev
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 14:49
  • 8
    The suggested edit audits never do anything even remotely good to post, so I can't see why someone should be improving them, it's not like pressing improve shows you any extra information, in fact it shows you much less. If it waited for you to press 'post' on the improvement it would just waste time - potentially a lot of time if a user was thorough.
    – OGHaza
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 14:51
  • 1
    @OGHaza I agree that most audits are pretty obvious that they are bad(like I said, I planned on rejecting this edit) but it just seems strange that you would fail before you even really make a decision. I'm not sure what "time" or who's is being wasted but maybe I don't fully understand how those work.
    – codeMagic
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 14:55
  • @codeMagic, if you improve the edit, it takes time to write the improvement, at which point you'd see "Failed!" even if you'd actually rolled back all the spam changes as part of your edit.
    – OGHaza
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 14:58
  • @OGHaza Hmmm...maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't actually going to improve but, if I did, wouldn't it just be my time wasted?
    – codeMagic
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 14:59
  • 6
    The purpose of the "audit" suggestions is to ensure that you are not just going to click "approve", "approve", "approve" ... If you click "Improve" then you should not get a fail unless you actually go ahead and save the new version.
    – Kevin Panko
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 15:02
  • Another consideration is: the programmers would have to write code to have the "Improve" button pretend to work but not actually work. The company would probably not find it worth spending programmer time/money on doing that.
    – Kevin Panko
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 15:04
  • @Kevin I'd agree with you guys if there was any knowledge to gain by clicking improve, in the case of the CVQ post linked by Mike hitting 'Close' lets you read up on possible close reasons and view suggested duplicates, in suggested edits as soon as you hit Improve you lose a ton of information.
    – OGHaza
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 15:05
  • My opinion is, you fail an audit or two, you learn how the system works, you don't fail again. Move on with your life.
    – Kevin Panko
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 15:09
  • Right, and I'm not worried about the failed audit but it just seemed a little premature. There is always the chance that you read it wrong, clicked improve, and realized you made a mistake. Now, I will admit, this may not be something that would happen often.
    – codeMagic
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 15:11
  • I am generally very skeptical about audits design (1, 2, 3) but looking at the way how edit audits are implemented I would say that failing audit at Improve button feels reasonable
    – gnat
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 15:14

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5

I have never failed an edit review audit. Reason? Well "Improve" means exactly that; it has an implication that the edit you're about to improve is worth improving. You're not improving the post but are improving the edit.

A diabolical edit should be simply rejected.

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    But it doesn't necessarily mean you are improving the edit. You can uncheck the bock to say it was helpful. This is the first time I've failed one for this reason. And, again, I never planned on accepting it. I just wanted to see something on that screen for what I was testing. I originally had a different question that I was going to ask until this came up.
    – codeMagic
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 16:36

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