0
$\begingroup$

I was doing some reviewing and I arrived at this post. It contains some explanation and a link to a drawing. In order to understand what the whole thing was about, I decided to edit the question.

As an immediate response, I was told that I had failed a review audit.

Let me explain: when a post contains some text and a link to an image, I have the habit of editing that question, adding an exclamation mark in front of the link, which shows the image.
Like this, I can see both the written text and the image in one screen.

In other words, editing an audit test should not automatically be treated as failing the test.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure there's any other option than failure if you try and edit on an audit test though. The audit test is really a yes/no question, so editing is avoiding the answer (in a sense). If the audit removed the edit option that would indicate that this was a test, which is something the audit doesn't want to do. The audit isn't human-managed, so your edit can't be assessed for 'correctness' against the yes/no answer. That only leaves failing the audit as the conclusion to trying to edit. However! Failing an audit is a bruise to the ego, nothing else. Brush it off and move on :) $\endgroup$
    – postmortes
    Apr 30 at 6:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @postmortes: I don't agree: the scenario I depicted is very realistic and just telling me to brush it off is not a professional answer to my question. I would propose the "Edit" checkbox to be visible and enabled, but the "Submit" button does not do anything in case of an audit test. $\endgroup$
    – Dominique
    Apr 30 at 7:22
  • $\begingroup$ @postmortes: by the way: the question I ask here, is this a question purely for the Math website or is this general for the entire StackExchange website? $\endgroup$
    – Dominique
    Apr 30 at 7:55
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ As far as I'm aware this is the way it works across the whole network. And, I am sorry, but I can't find a more professional suggestion for you considering you're getting upset about a meaningless test that doesn't actually affect your life in any way. Hopefully someone else can provide you with the perspective you're seeking. $\endgroup$
    – postmortes
    Apr 30 at 10:20
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ (1) Audits are automatically generated and automatically "graded". They are meant to provide a check against robo-reviewing. Nothing more. (2) It is very unlikely that anyone will ever look at your history of audit reviews (unless there is a good reason to believe that you are engaging in robo-reviewing), so it doesn't really matter if you "fail" an audit every once in a while. (3) You will never be automatically suspended from reviewing for failing audits, and will never be suspended by a moderator for one audit. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Apr 30 at 12:04
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Relax. This isn't a big deal, and no one really cares about one audit every once in a while. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Apr 30 at 12:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson: Don't worry, I am very relaxed. Just contributing to the quality of the site, that's all. $\endgroup$
    – Dominique
    Apr 30 at 12:48
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ First, good on you for working the review queues. Second, the tooling provided for reviews isn't very good, but the owners of SE prioritize adding users, not improving the quality of the corpus or the experience of existing users, so the tooling is unlikely to be fixed or improved. So, like lots of people in IT, you are doing an important job with bad tools, and the mods have reassured you that any errors that result won't be held against you. I think "learn not to try to use the review queue that way, sigh, and move on" is how I'd handle this. $\endgroup$
    – JonathanZ
    Apr 30 at 12:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The review audits need to be upgraded, to minimize "dings" for attempts to benefit the site through reviews, @Xander. "What is" the case should never be a substitute "for suggestions for improvement", or "efforts to bring real issues to the attention of mods, who can then escalate the suggests/issues". Telling folks only "what is", is only half the story. And thanks, Dominique, for reviewing. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    May 2 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ You might be interested in posting future observations to Examples of poor Review Audits. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    May 3 at 18:00

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .