2

While reviewing answers I bumped into an answer that looked OK but I noticed that a different user posted already exactly the same answer. Consequently I raised a flag and reported that the answer is just a copy/paste of an existing answer. In response I got:

STOP! Look and Listen.

This was an audit, designed to see if you were paying attention. You didn't pass. Your review was inappropriate. This was a high quality post and you should have considered leaving it as-is or even upvoting.

Don't worry, we've already handled this post appropriately – but please take a minute to look it over closely, keeping in mind the guidance above.

I find that such audits are not helpful.

  • 1
    Would help a lot if you could link that audit so we can see it, otherwise this is nothing more than a rant. FYI the only point of audits are to make sure people pay attention, sometimes though., they can go bad. – Mark Kirby Jul 13 '16 at 21:56
  • This is the question. The complete answer by André Borie was supposed to be reviewed. – Goran Miskovic Jul 14 '16 at 8:17
  • At first look, that is a solid +15 accepted answer. Is your issue that they reference they posted the same thing on security? It is acceptable to copy answer from other sites, as long as you link and give credit, it is only not acceptable to copy internal answers (from Ask Ubuntu to Ask Ubuntu), also it was his answer on security he copied. I don't see what is wrong here, please educate me. – Mark Kirby Jul 14 '16 at 8:23
  • The answer to be reviewed was not posted by André Borie but by anonymous user. Therefore my review was correct since it is not acceptable to copy internal answers, right? – Goran Miskovic Jul 14 '16 at 8:37
  • It was a trick to make sure you were paying attention. The system changed the user name to make sure users are not voting for people but the quality of content. I see what you must of thought, this answer is a copy/paste of one that was already there but that is wrong, there is no answer on the page by anonymous, it is the same answer. Ignore user names and reputation, review on the content of the answer alone and if in doubt, look at the OP and the others on the question, you can see no answer was posted by an anonymous user, or you can just choose skip.. – Mark Kirby Jul 14 '16 at 8:44
  • 1
    I got your point. However, the system should be more intelligent since in the comment I stated that flag was raised because the answer is copy/paste of André Borie answer. :) – Goran Miskovic Jul 14 '16 at 8:50
  • 2
    The answer was not a copy/paste, it is the same answer, there is no copied answer on that page, it was André Borie's answer. The system was intelligent, it swapped the user names to make sure you checked the OP correctly, there would be two identical answers on the page if it was a copy but there is not. I am sorry to say but the review is correct, it is a good answer and should stay where it is. Always check the original question and look for inconsistencies (like an answer that is not there). – Mark Kirby Jul 14 '16 at 8:57
  • 1
    I don't feel comfortable discussing the problem with you any more. It does not feel as a constructive conversation. Thank you for your feedback. I will take it into consideration. – Goran Miskovic Jul 14 '16 at 9:16
  • 1
    Sorry but you are wrong here. I am not trying to make you comfortable, the fact you end the discussion because I don't support your position on this, speaks volumes about your post. You are annoyed because you failed the audit and you think the whole site should change because of it. It was very constructive, I showed you why you were wrong This is not your hugbox, it is a public forum, you put a post out there people will give there opinion, if you like it or not. Thanks for wasting my time by trying to help you.. – Mark Kirby Jul 14 '16 at 9:29
11

They are abrupt, and are occasionally incorrect but people fail them enough to get themselves banned from reviewing and that is a great thing.

Robo-reviewers trash the queues and ruin the quality of the site. Even if you're the king of accurate reviewing, there are people out there who have sloppy spells, that we need audits to catch. Causing you a tiny inconvenience is a worthwhile price to find them. Sorry.

  • I agree, the audits are flawed and even annoying at times but they work, even on longer term users, they make us careful because we are aware of it and don't want to be banned. – Mark Kirby Jul 14 '16 at 7:56
  • 1
    No doubt that there is a great value in audits. My point is let's make audits more intelligent. – Goran Miskovic Jul 14 '16 at 8:54
  • @GoranMiskovic I am afraid it is impossible for any system to make an assumption on what you read and/or remembered on the site. – Jacob Vlijm Jul 14 '16 at 10:51
  • 1
    @JacobVlijm I am not following you. When I raised flag I clearly stated in the comment that the answer is copy/paste of André Borie's answer. If the comment was taken in account the system could figure out why I raised the flag. The only assumption in this story is that a reviewer will understand that user_1234536 is actually André Borie. Could I noticed that there is no answer from user_1234536? Perhaps I could but I didn't. I trusted that the system will not trick me. – Goran Miskovic Jul 14 '16 at 11:21
  • 3
    I had not been reviewing long when was caught out by one of these. I re-read the whole thing again carefully, and agreed that I really hadn't paid enough attention. I have reviewed plenty since and never been caught out once. So they do work. – Carl H Jul 15 '16 at 8:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .