6

Lately 100% of the audits I've seen in the suggested edits queue have looked like this:

fake edit filled with nonsense text

These are obviously not legitimate edits. They look like they've been generated by the audit system instead.

What I'm used to from the audit system is getting a normal-looking entry, taking the appropriate action, and getting rewarded by being told I made the right decision (or, occasionally, being reminded to pay attention). These nonsense edits accomplish neither. They just make me angry because I had to read word vomit.

Is there a reason the audit system is generating these edits? Couldn't it just use previously flagged edits like all the other review queues?

3 Answers 3

8

This is by design.

Audits are not to make sure you know how to fix a post. They are there to deter "robo-reviewers" who click approve without bothering to check posts to hunt for badges.

Making it very easily distinguishable is by design. These audits should waste as little time from reviewers as possible so they can use that time for properly reviewing other legitimate posts.

5

Dan's answer is correct. Don't waste review time, but still find the lowest hanging fruit. Which is important to do. People reviewing solely to juice their numbers really spoil a crowd-sourced system.

But I will add this to your follow-up suggestion...

Couldn't it just use previously flagged edits like all the other review queues?

Real life is messy. I've declined flags and have still gone onto delete a post, I've declined appalling edits and then re-edit in a different direction, there are times when things deserve a little more hand-holding and all these things conspire into a big creamy trifle of subjectivity.

The great thing about these is they're day and night. Nobody's going to get bent up if they're caught by an audit like this. It's a fair collar they know it.

3

This isn't specific to Ask Ubuntu, but Stack Exchange.

I have no problem with these types of audits.

Remember that the purpose of an audit is to prevent people from blindly completing reviews without actually making an effort to review the information.

Your complaint seems to indicate that it is a waste of time. If anything, these particular reviews are too easy. It's very obvious that the edits do not offer any improvement and should be rejected. Remember also the review queue for edits is for people suggesting edits to someone else's question or answer. It should be immediately obvious that these edits are inappropriate.

4
  • 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 at 20:59
  • 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?
    – Nmath
    May 29 at 21:02
  • 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 30 at 5:57
  • 1
    @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.
    – terdon
    May 30 at 9:43

You must log in to answer this question.

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