Timeline for Can the audit system not use fake edits?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2022 at 9:43 | comment | added | terdon | @NonnyMoose actually, the main point of the audits is to catch robo-reviewers: people who just click through the review queue without even reading. And these audits are particularly good at that since if you do accept it, you are obviously not paying attention. If you need to think about it, that means it might theoretically be a valid edit so even if you get it "wrong" that doesn't mean you weren't paying attention. | |
| May 30, 2022 at 5:57 | comment | added | Artur Meinild | I agree. The purpose of the audits is to catch people who blindly review, so audits should actually be quite obvious. On the other hand, I think some of the other audits are sometimes a bit too hard, because there can for instance actually be doubt if a question is good enough quality. | |
| May 29, 2022 at 21:02 | comment | added | Nmath | Can you quantify the burden of "wasted time" in this situation? Whose time is wasted? Honest reviewers? Elected moderators? How much time would you say is wasted? | |
| May 29, 2022 at 20:59 | comment | added | Nonny Moose | You are correct - these reviews are too easy. I shouldn't be able to say with certainty that an audit is an audit just by looking at it. That's why they are a waste of time. | |
| May 29, 2022 at 18:02 | history | answered | Nmath | CC BY-SA 4.0 |