11

This is the second time I got that unloved "Stop! Look and Listen" for a question I voted to close after reading it several times and trying to understand it.

review audit fail

The question really is not clear to me: it seems he is asking for a shortcut like ALT^ that switches between windows of the same application, but then he states Oscar goes to tmux - which left me only with several ???.

My first version for the post used much stronger language :-)

After having read several comments I want to point out that I didn't want to discuss if this question should be closed or not - my purpose was to show that it is entirely possible for one question to be regarded as good by some reviewers and as bad by others - all acting in good faith - so those audits (in the close queue) eventually will go wrong.

15
  • 6
    I normally go outside the queue and vote them to close... is because we have this kinds of doggy posts the review audits will not be so effective.
    – Braiam
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 16:31
  • 2
    @Braiam I understand your motivation - but this cannot be the purpose of the audits, can it?
    – guntbert
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 16:33
  • The same happened to me with this off-topic question: askubuntu.com/questions/422135/… -- I'm wondering: how does the audit system work? Audits aren't much useful this way.
    – Andrea Corbellini
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 18:12
  • 1
    @AndreaCorbellini That question is not off-topic. Maybe you got a wrong link?
    – Seth Mod
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 18:34
  • related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/179651/… I currently have a bounty on it using most my MSO rep.
    – Mateo
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 18:58
  • 1
    @Mateo not quite - I did want to close that question - and I still would VTC.
    – guntbert
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 19:03
  • 1
    wonder if they throw it out of the review audit system if it get's edited - if not that may prevent this kind of close reason being a review audit question.
    – Mateo
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 19:07
  • Had I got a post like that I would rather edit it, never flag to close.
    – Luís de Sousa
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 20:48
  • @LuísdeSousa we are not talking about flags here but about votes.
    – guntbert
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 20:50
  • Ok, could you then explain what a vote is in this context?
    – Luís de Sousa
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 20:52
  • @LuísdeSousa see askubuntu.com/help/privileges/close-questions
    – guntbert
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 20:54
  • Weird... it got no votes...
    – Braiam
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 21:51
  • I mean, close votes...
    – Braiam
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 22:00
  • @Seth yeah, that was the one askubuntu.com/review/close/229144
    – Braiam
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 23:26
  • @Braiam that double link edit is a nice trick :-)
    – guntbert
    Commented Mar 1, 2014 at 18:56

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5

No, actually the lack of a well defined quality policies will dismiss the usefulness of the audits, I've failed 2 audits already just because of this (and went outside of the queue and voted to close them). The system selects seriously upvoted posts as examples, but upvotes is not the face value of a post (for example this Comparison of backup tools).

Your judgment was right, that Q is very subjective:

So many answers and yet the (subjectively) most valuable suggestion for me is delivered in a comment ... so ironic.

This is a change of behavior in how to use the terminal and the window manager. For example, I normally don't have 2 window of the same application opened at the same time, meaning: 1 Iceweasel, 1 terminal, 1 Chromium, 1 zim wiki, 1 window of whatever, and then organize them by tabs. For me that's efficient since I don't use several terminal window.

How to handle multiple terminals (and instances of same application in general) efficiently using the keyboard?

^ This is precisely what I don't do... why I would need several window of the same terminal when I could get just 1 and several tabs?

1
  • 3
    agreed. votes are no indication of quality and on-topicness. It would be preferable if the test cases were chosen manually.
    – don.joey
    Commented Mar 2, 2014 at 17:25
1

Like I said earlier, the audit system is not smart. All it can do is take posts it sees as "good" (ones with lots of upvotes, both on the question and answer(s)). I'm not sure what all the system looks at, it probably looks at views too.

But, in essence, the audit system relies on us to define what a good question is and what a bad question is. This is why I disagree with the current implementation of close vote audits, they're just too relative.

AFAIK the audit system doesn't give out auto review bans, so I wouldn't worry about audits so much in the close vote queue. I'm actually hoping to get them pulled from that queue.

Now, here is my opinion about that question.

I understand it perfectly, the OP usually has many terminals up each running a different program and he doesn't like the "window spread" effect when he tries to switch between them, because it's hard to tell them apart.

I would have suggested the same thing, a terminal multiplexer.

11
  • I appreciate that the question is clear for you - what I contend is the connotation (of the audit text) "you didn't look carefully", the idea behind voting is that a person can make errors, but honestly not careless.
    – guntbert
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 19:14
  • 1
    Have a look at @braiam's comment on my question - taking every review out of the queue cannot be the purpose of audits either. The way audits are currently working is disrupting and counter productive.
    – guntbert
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 19:17
  • @guntbert I agree with most of what you say, we aren't SO and I don't think we need to worry about bad reviewers in the close vote queue.
    – Seth Mod
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 19:22
  • 1
    Uh? yes, we do
    – Braiam
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 21:42
  • @Braiam Yes, I misspoke, we do need to worry about them, but I don't think these audits are the answer in the close queue. They work fine in the other queues, but they don't work well here.
    – Seth Mod
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 22:40
  • Well, those are claims only related to the close queue, through.
    – Braiam
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 22:49
  • @Braiam That's what I said!
    – Seth Mod
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 23:17
  • "I don't think these audits are the answer in the close queue" I think we need audits in the close queues. Dunno where's the problem.
    – Braiam
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 23:18
  • 1
    @Braiam Not the way they are currently implemented, no.
    – Seth Mod
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 23:19
  • Well, the system was designed to get the high quality questions to test us.
    – Braiam
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 23:27
  • 1
    @Braiam I don't see where it has failed in that endeavor. We all have slightly different opinions, the system can't make us all happy, but overall when it comes to what questions it chooses, it seems ok. What are you getting at? You seem to be going random on me.
    – Seth Mod
    Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 23:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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