Edit - Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

15

Review audits serve a valuable purpose of reining in robo-reviewers, ensuring everyone is paying sufficient attention. Do you have an alternative solution for that?
– mhlester
Commented Apr 22, 2014 at 19:59
4

What is a "robo-reviewer"? I have yet to see a bot account accrue 500 reputation, never mind enough to cast open or close votes...
– user152743
Commented Apr 22, 2014 at 20:07
9

robo-reviewers aren't actually bots, just users approving everything they see in order to get the Steward/Reviewer badges
– mhlester
Commented Apr 22, 2014 at 20:22
3

@mhlester unfortunately, we still have those even with audits on.
– John Dvorak
Commented Apr 22, 2014 at 20:42
4

Then I would suggest there are two possible situations: 1) most reviews require careful thought, and "robo-reviewers" are clear outliers that can be dealt with by the mods in the same way as robo-upvoters, downvoters, flaggers, etc. 2) "robo-reviewers" cannot be detected heuristically because most reviews do not require any thought, as "accept" is correct 99% of the time, and the review queue should just be removed entirely.
– user152743
Commented Apr 22, 2014 at 20:42
My experience is that open/close queues are in the former category, and suggested edits in the latter, though this is on math.se and I have no experience what things are like on the other networks
– user152743
Commented Apr 22, 2014 at 20:43
@user152743 as for 1) - what would be the way? You can't just reverse everything. Also, you need a way to detect them. 2) is definitely not the case.
– John Dvorak
Commented Apr 22, 2014 at 20:44
If 2) is not the case, then it is easy heuristically to identify users who are abusing the system. Flag those users for moderator review, and ban abusers from the review system (or the network entirely).
– user152743
Commented Apr 22, 2014 at 20:49
24

I'd say get rid of the badges. A shame, but the current cure is worse than the disease. I would review out of the goodness of my heart, but I don't anymore because I too think audits are insulting.
– Ben Millwood
Commented Apr 27, 2014 at 14:36
1

+100 if I could. A shame I posted my comment under the other answer before I saw this one.
– Dawood ibn Kareem
Commented May 4, 2014 at 8:40
6

I will never understand why some people take it so seriously when they are "insulted" by a computer :D. Same with downvotes and close-votes, virtual stuff. Simply stop taking it personally.
– kapa
Commented May 23, 2014 at 9:58
7

@kapa This is not a game. We expect to deal with people here, not AIs.
– Noctis Skytower
Commented Jun 9, 2014 at 14:29
9

I also "tried to do the right thing" today and got banned. If no one is worrying that people trying to do the right thing are getting punished, something is wrong. If such people refuse to perform reviews in the future, the system contributes to lower performance.
– Noctis Skytower
Commented Jun 9, 2014 at 14:55
8

If you're contributing time and patience on reviewing and you're getting banned for reason you strongly disagree with, then yes - it is offending. There's little intelligence involved in judging. It's a matter of stand. There's no straight line isolating bad posts from the good ones. Just give us an option to circumstantiate our verdicts.
– Tarec
Commented Jul 4, 2014 at 17:16
2

"Doing the right thing" is entirely subjective. Good reviewers rarely get banned because they follow the community rules. Those who have misguided ideas about the rules and guidelines put in place by the community will fail audits regularly. One bad audit cannot get you an audit ban, and if you dispute it and you win then the failed audit is expunged from your record. The only real reason that you would get a review ban is if you are going to fast and you're not paying enough attention. I agree that any gains for the reviewer should be removed, good reviewers don't care about the badges.
– Diminutive Colossus
Commented Jun 11, 2015 at 16:42

| Show 9 more comments

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
indent code by 4 spaces
backtick escapes `like _so_`
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »