We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
527

Rather than an "I don't understand" button, I could get behind a "This audit is incorrect" one that required you to type an explanation for why you disagreed (with a minimum character limit). Such a button would remove an audit case from rotation pending review by devs (or moderators) in a special list. These cases seem like they'd be quick for us to review,...


109

I'm done reviewing anything until there's some sort of automatic disputation option for audits. I don't want to create a meta question for every bad audit either. A number of times, I have opened the offending question or answer in a new window, taken the action I believe is appropriate on it, and moved on. But that's getting old for me. I have not failed a ...


98

I think what you discovered is a mistake in the design of "honeypot" test. This mistake is likely based on the wrong assumption1 that test should catch anyone who randomly clicks on stuff deemed incorrect. The assumption looks incorrect because per my understanding, "honeypot" is intended to catch "fake reviewers" - those abusing review actions with the ...


66

I understand the problem with people cheating the first post review audits by simply clicking the add comment button, but there really has to be a more graceful way to handle it. It should be as simple as forcing the person to actually write the comment and submit it which will make it less abusable, and if they are abusing the system, they'll be caught ...


62

While there is no "officially implemented" solution for this, one can use whatever means are at their disposal now in order to bring the "human factor" to audits selection. When you spot a slippery audit, go straight to the "item" it uses and do the action opposite to audit direction. If you feel something rotten before submitting the audit, use link to ...


41

My usual flow when reviewing is: Read the title Read the question Click the "Close" button, skim trough the reasons if I am not sure and verify that what I just read is okay with all the points. Either click "X" to close the closing window and Leave Open or Skip, or choose the close reason and close. To clarify; I am not interested in what other ...


40

If the review audit didn't even wait to see if you unchecked the "suggested edit was helpful" box when improving the edit, this seems like a design flaw; of course you should improve it if you see anything in the original post that should be edited, even if the suggested edit is a bad one. Are you expected to wait for 2 more reviews and then remember the ...


35

However, it kinda falls apart when you want to close a known-good question as a duplicate. Fixing this would require dragging in code that's currently being extensively re-written; doing so is not feasible at this time. It may or may not become possible in the future - even without the current re-write, the logic for that UI isn't trivial to ...


30

I understand the purpose of positive audits but I think the system is flawed. The good way to review is take time, read the post and understand it. When doing that, I find myself having all sorts off thoughts around the topic mentioned in the post. Sometimes I would like to add something. Sometimes I know a good link that would add to the post. Sometimes I ...


29

I just ran a query and want to be clear - until 3:05 UTC today, the question had a positive score of 5 with no down votes, no moderator flags, no close votes and had been marked as a favorite. The question is also well over a week old, has an up voted accepted answer and hasn't moved prior to today. Everything negative associated with that question happened ...


26

I'm the reason that answer was presented to you, because I'm the mod that processed the flags that collected on it indicating that it's not really an answer to the question. I actually spent a bit of time on it, and almost edited it, but every edit I could think up left me with something that looked, at least to me like a comment at best. I did agree with ...


26

This was the answer, which was visible to you when you first reviewed: I think, if you try really hard, you can probably figure out why that wasn't an answer to the question. If it helps, this product's backers are notorious spammers who've plagued multiple sites on Stack Exchange for years now. You've been banned 8 times from review so far, and failed ...


23

I have no technical knowledge of the topics... I tried to upvote. In cases like that, don't upvote. It's that simple. Test item taught you just that. "Learn to love that Skip button." As explained in comments, reviewer should act judiciously in posts out of their area of expertise: It's perfectly fine to review out of your area of expertise, but the ...


23

Borrowing from your comment, here is the main problem. Of course there is "Edit", but I don't always want to/have time to edit a review. If you don't have time to fix problems with low quality questions, you should not be using the queue. The whole point is to identify and fix issues. If you don't have time for that, just leave it for somebody else or ...


21

I disagree. While it's true that it's a self-answer by the OP, it's absolutely not an answer- it's clearly meant as additional information, the kind of information that would fit well in a comment or an edit to the original post. Imagine that you Googled this issue, and came across this question, happy to see that it has answers. Would you be satisfied by ...


20

The problem is that normally when you improve an edit you get the current revision as the edit that was suggested. Whether or not they hit that checkbox doesn't make any difference if the person truly isn't paying attention and some of the fake edit makes it into the actual post, which is essentially the same as approving the edit (even if it's not in its ...


20

You did 5-7 reviews per minute, which suggests that you're not paying attention. Failing the obvious audit proves that you're going too fast. I feel the system is working as it should.


20

I think this is a bad question to use for review, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be closed. really belongs on Programmers or Code Review, not Stack Overflow; There's no reason to move it if it's on-topic on Stack Overflow just because it might also be on-topic on another site. It also already got a good answer on Stack Overflow, so there's no ...


19

I don't think you should have failed this audit, but not necessarily for the reasons you think. Yes, it appears to be a bad audit question1, and had I decided to review it, I probably would have failed. But since I am not familiar with haskell I probably would have skipped it. Personally, I don't think you should have failed it because I don't think you ...


18

If you look carefully at the post, it's in fact well crafted SPAM. It begins to vaguely answer the question, then does nothing but promote a commercial product instead. This is actually rather common, make it look 'just enough' like an actual human being trying to help in hopes of avoiding detection. It was deleted by the community after accruing enough ...


18

The way that you've evaluated the audit question can only be done by a human. There's no practical way to program a computer so that it can understand and evaluate semantics. Consequently, there are always going to be people who fail audits for reasons having to do with human factors. I'm a moderator, and I still fail the occasional audit; in fact, I ...


17

I've just failed First Posts review queue audit on such answer: Sort the other range only, and then use std::merge. While the using of std::merge could really solve the OPs problem, I've found it not appropriate to flag the answer as link-only. However, according to current guidelines, the answer should be independent from the link, so it should provide ...


16

This is just one of those unfortunate situations where everything occurred out of order. The answer was selected as an audit candidate because of its upvotes, which most likely occurred before the question was modified. During a review audit, you're not shown those votes. When evaluating low-quality posts, ask yourself the following questions: Is it spam?...


16

I wouldn't quite call that a recommendation question, but I can see how you'd make that assessment at first glance. It looks narrow enough and could be made more clear with a little editorial love. As for the audit, as far as the system knew, this was a good example of a question that probably should not be closed. This is due to its overall reception. We ...


15

To clarify, the original answer looked like this: Maybe I didn't understand the question, but if you only want the url text, why are you creating an anchor tag? should'nt it be better just to put the url text without the html format? The reason this was a honeypot is pretty obvious from looking at it. Bad timing I suppose. I think it is also ...


15

As Tim notes, this was not a bad question. It was a short question. But you still spent less than three seconds reviewing it; if your only criteria for whether or not a question should be closed is "does this question have a code block in it" that makes sense - but if so, you should realize that you've transformed yourself into a very simple pattern-...


15

Requests for detailed tutorials are Too Broad, by definition. The full close reason (I've bolded the relevant portion): There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs. The problem here is the level ...


14

I have never seen a code-only answer that couldn't be made better with the addition of appropriate text. They are of lower-quality than the same answer with some text. I agree that out-right deleting them is not the answer. It seems to me that what we need is a mechanism to say that we think a low-quality question can be improved, but isn't something that ...


14

The "Not an Answer" flag that was cast against the answer you reviewed should have been declined, since it was clearly an answer, just a wrong one. Sorry about that. We've all been asked to be more strict about flags that are being used improperly, and this is one of the reasons why. Because answer you audited was deleted by a mod in response to a "Not an ...


14

Considering the entire question, I don't see it as a "write my code" request. OP posted code and explained what it was doing wrong, and described what result was expected. The last paragraph taken out of context could perhaps be interpreted as you did. However, I think it's grossly unfair to simply ignore the other sections of the post ("My actual method", "...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible