Timeline for Should we get review audits?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 8:50 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Feb 23, 2014 at 20:02 | history | edited | Seth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2014 at 19:42 | history | edited | Olli | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Let's use ISO8601 date format
|
| Feb 20, 2014 at 16:21 | vote | accept | Braiam | ||
| Feb 20, 2014 at 16:15 | answer | added | Shog9 | timeline score: 10 | |
| Feb 20, 2014 at 16:13 | history | edited | Shog9 |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 19, 2014 at 21:03 | comment | added | Mateo | yes, because of robo reviewers. | |
| Feb 19, 2014 at 20:36 | history | edited | Braiam | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 111 characters in body
|
| Feb 15, 2014 at 1:37 | history | edited | Braiam |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 25, 2013 at 15:52 | history | edited | Braiam | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 45 characters in body
|
| Dec 13, 2013 at 11:50 | history | edited | Braiam | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 59 characters in body
|
| Dec 13, 2013 at 11:45 | comment | added | Braiam | @andrewsomething The last thing you mentioned. meta.stackexchange.com/q/157121/213575 | |
| Dec 13, 2013 at 3:33 | comment | added | andrewsomething | Could you explain what you actually mean by "review audits." None of the linked questions explain this. Are you proposing that moderators do some kind of manual auditing of past reviews or some kind of automated process? You mentioned that this is something other sites have. Do you mean the "honeypot" review items that catch people approving junk? | |
| Dec 12, 2013 at 19:30 | comment | added | Jorge Castro | I've brought this up before, perhaps merge? meta.askubuntu.com/questions/7234/… | |
| Dec 12, 2013 at 19:29 | answer | added | Jorge Castro | timeline score: 9 | |
| Dec 12, 2013 at 18:22 | comment | added | Braiam | @JorgeCastro I would love to know where the problem is so I can generate the data, but if I can't trust reviewers are doing their stuff right, then no matter what actions I take if my sources are poisoned with bad data. | |
| Dec 12, 2013 at 17:34 | comment | added | Jorge Castro | One thing you can do is start writing data.se queries for things so that we can start actioning on them. | |
| Dec 12, 2013 at 15:26 | comment | added | Braiam | @JorgeCastro yeah, that was the one that we catch. But what about the ones that miss completely our radar? Problems that happens everywhere in the site. We need as many eyes on the site as possible, and I think the audits is a nice addition to check if the reviewers are doing things right too. I swear I'm learning DB to gather proof. | |
| Dec 12, 2013 at 14:49 | comment | added | Jorge Castro | All the questions linked seem to have been resolved? AFAICT that's what we use the chat room for no? | |
| Dec 12, 2013 at 11:52 | comment | added | Braiam | @kalina because reasons | |
| Dec 12, 2013 at 11:25 | comment | added | Flyk | why are "We get a better (?) Ask Ubuntu" and "Users will ask why they failed a review audit" cons? | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 22:01 | history | asked | Braiam | CC BY-SA 3.0 |