I recently failed an audit in the queue for auto-flagged low-quality posts.

Side question: can I somehow look that failed audit up to post the details here? In the meantime, I will recite from memory.

I pondered a while over the question because it was just a one-liner with a link attached. Basically, it read "use capital Y instead of non-capital y in your format string. You can find an explanation here: tutorial-link".

Although I did not know the language, the question was about date formatting and it does indeed work that way in languages I do know, so it looked ok, content-wise. If it were not ok for that specific language, that should have been a matter of voting/commenting, not closing/flagging.

Considering the answer would still provide help even if the link went dead, I think it was an edge case for link-only, but still ok. Certainly not the best answer I ever saw on SO, but not worth deleting either.

When I clicked "Looks good", I was greeted by the "you failed" message, telling me that the answer was deleted for "abusive language and spam". Abusive language and spam? Who did that? That's way off. And who decided this would make a good audit?

I never actually followed that link, maybe it did redirect to spam. If it had been flagged for spam I would have checked, but in the context of low-quality, I do not actually follow every link just to make sure it actually leads where it seems to lead.

There are a lot of other threads about auditing audits and I voted on them.

But after reading the other threads, I still wonder: who decides what makes a good audit?

  • The system. Few lines of code. Or in simple words, the audits are picked from real posts. :) Mar 26, 2014 at 11:37
  • 'with a link attached ... deleted for "abusive language and spam"' -- have you checked where the link led? Mar 26, 2014 at 11:39
  • 1
    "I do not actually follow every link" - perhaps you should, or at least read the URL. Mar 26, 2014 at 11:39
  • @JanDvorak The URL was fine. Looked like a tutorial site or blog. Do you actually follow every single link you see, even if it looks ok and the post was flagged for something totally unrelated?
    – nvoigt
    Mar 26, 2014 at 11:42
  • @nvoigt hmm... do you have a link to the audit? You should find it in the browser tab history. Mar 26, 2014 at 11:45
  • 1
    @ShadowWizard That duplicate does not actually answer my question, although your comment does. It did however enlighten me that that "low quality queue" has audits from those that were flagged as SPAM. I always thought that flags ended in the flag queue and the queue low quality queque were those posts that the system automatically marked. It seems I was wrong.
    – nvoigt
    Mar 26, 2014 at 11:47
  • @JanDvorak not right now, that was this morning at home, I will check my history when I get back.
    – nvoigt
    Mar 26, 2014 at 11:50
  • 1
    It is this audit: stackoverflow.com/review/low-quality-posts/4426384
    – rene
    Mar 26, 2014 at 12:01
  • And this is the (might be NSFW) link: javacodeimpl.blogspot.in/2013/05/…
    – rene
    Mar 26, 2014 at 12:05
  • @nvoigt yes it does: The test presents a reviewer with a post that was previously removed by a moderator and known to be of extremely poor quality (flagged as spam, not an answer or very low quality). Mar 26, 2014 at 14:14
  • You might be missing the context that this same user had created multiple accounts to spam that same link across several unrelated questions, but take one look at that site. It's an ad-plastered mess, and he's clearly using Stack Overflow as a link farm to drive traffic to it. That answer, along with their others, was flagged as spam and deleted as such, at which point it automatically becomes an audit candidate. Mar 26, 2014 at 14:38
  • @ShadowWizard I do know that those are former posts removed by mods, but my question was how those are picked that are used for auditing. If it's just a "random from all" as your first comment implies, then that's indeed an answer, the possible duplicate was somewhat unclear if there was a process to filter some for auditing.
    – nvoigt
    Mar 26, 2014 at 14:44
  • @BradLarson I can indeed see that if this was posted across multiple posts here, it may be classified as spam. But without any context just as a single link, I would never have classified it as spam. And the review queue comes without context, it's just a single post. Granted, it's not very good, but as a single post, it's not SPAM or abusive either. I think this does not make good audit material. Is there a way to remove this from the audits?
    – nvoigt
    Mar 26, 2014 at 14:47
  • @nvoigt "random from all" is my guess and very likely, other things like sort of same scored answers or users in the lists are also random for example. As I'm not 100% sure of that, better have a dev confirm then we can add it into the faq answer. :) Mar 26, 2014 at 14:57


Browse other questions tagged .