Timeline for Add an "I don't understand" option for review audits
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 4, 2015 at 19:00 | comment | added | David Moles | @TinyGiant I never blame the computer. I blame the people who programmed the computer. | |
| Jun 11, 2015 at 21:08 | comment | added | Diminutive Colossus | How can you get mad at (or feel insulted by) a computer which is simply doing what it was told to do. It's not the computer's fault that a bunch of idiots upvoted a bad question for the wrong reason. Just like it's not your computers fault that you got a virus from browsing porn. Don't blame the computer, blame the idiots that upvote bad questions and answers or downvote good questions and answers (also, blame the idiot that was watching porn without adblock) | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 12:02 | comment | added | Sepster | "...but the failed audits are very invalidating". I couldn't agree more. I just copped a review audit failure (my first, and frankly my last), for erring on the side of trying to improve an answer rather than recommend deletion (amongst the verbosity there were some very helpful points from an apparently experienced practitioner, of a relatively obscure technology such that the info contained within was of high value). To be told I should have looked more closely is quite condescending given the care and consideration I had always applied to my reviews. | |
| May 4, 2014 at 8:38 | comment | added | Dawood ibn Kareem | I find the whole concept of review audits patronising and insulting. I used to sometimes go to the review queues, in the interest of helping the Stack Overflow community. I mean, we all play our part, right? But after two "review the reviewer" questions, I decided I don't need the grief. If the community doesn't trust me to review correctly, that's fine. And I will never again review anything. | |
| Aug 1, 2013 at 16:12 | comment | added | hardmath | You make a number of points consonant with my view, not least of which is not creating a meta question for every bad audit. The only further point I'd like to emphasize is that I'm personally open to some kind of learning component/explanatory mechanism when an audit fail seems wrong. E.g. the community standards at StackOverflow need not be the same as at Math.SE, and perhaps some tweaking (of my "collegial" judgements in reviews for the latter) is necessary to do reviews properly at SO. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 16:14 | history | answered | jball | CC BY-SA 3.0 |