5

I believe I do a pretty good job of reviewing posts, so I was surprised this morning to find that I've been banned due to an 'incorrect review'. However, the linked post in the ban message was approved, and I was one of the people who approved it.

You have made too many incorrect reviews. For an example of a task you should have reviewed differently, see: https://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/12565013

Can someone explain why? Also, where can I see my review history so I can see how many fails I have?

10
  • 3
    Did you by chance get an email or notification from a mod? You may have been manually banned for something. Jun 3, 2016 at 12:56
  • 9
    Very likely related (the edits are similar): Why is this a terrible suggested edit?. Jun 3, 2016 at 12:56
  • 8
    Just because a review was approved does not mean it was the correct action. And in that case adding backticks to make certain parts stand out is not considered correct.
    – Joe W
    Jun 3, 2016 at 12:57
  • I did not receive an email...
    – stevieb
    Jun 3, 2016 at 12:57
  • @Jow W: ok, I appreciate that. I'm still learning the ropes of what should be approved and not approved. I'll be more cautious on those simple edits where things are just 'backticked'. It would have been nice however to get some feedback as to exactly why it was incorrect without having to ask here
    – stevieb
    Jun 3, 2016 at 12:59
  • 1
    @stevieb personalized responses are always preferable for instructional purposes, but given the volume of flags that moderators have to deal with, a personalized "you did this wrong because...." for every action they take is time consuming. Asking on meta is certainly appropriate. Jun 3, 2016 at 13:05
  • You can see your review history here: stackoverflow.com/users/current/?tab=activity&sort=reviews Jun 3, 2016 at 13:06
  • @JonasCz Thanks for the link!
    – stevieb
    Jun 3, 2016 at 13:17
  • 2
    As a fellow banned reviewer I find this incredibly silly: 1) In contrast to the duplicate question all backticks were around function and class names. This is exactly how they are used by the official documentation or @Flexo, who partially rolled back the edit. 2) Not removing the fluff is an orthogonal issue. Usually when I review I accept and edit, guess I missed it.
    – Zulan
    Jun 4, 2016 at 7:29
  • 2
    3) At the very least the rollback message should provide a specific (reference to) explanation why this was supposedly wrong. Otherwise there is no basis for learning. Actually even after reading the two meta posts, I have no reason to reject such an edit in the future, except for improving it by removing the fluff.
    – Zulan
    Jun 4, 2016 at 7:30

1 Answer 1

10

The review you link to was accepted, yes.
However, a moderator rolled back that suggested edit.

It is likely that that moderator manually applied the review bans, as that suggestion really shouldn't have been approved in the first place:

  • Noise like "Thanks" wasn't removed.
  • Code blocks were added to make certain words stand out. Code blocks are for code. Not for emphasis.

The suggestion only added code-blocks where they (arguably) aren't required. Altogether, the edit didn't improve the question.

4
  • 3
    SKAction would appear to be a type, so it is not "wrong" for it to be enclosed in backticks. but as mentioned in the post I linked above, seems to be based on personal perference. Jun 3, 2016 at 13:08
  • 4
    I agree that the code blocks are arguable. However, the noise should really have been removed.
    – Cerbrus
    Jun 3, 2016 at 13:11
  • 1
    Absolutely, no argument there. I was mostly responding to your 2nd bullet and the use of the word "emphasis", Jun 3, 2016 at 13:13
  • I appreciate everyone's feedback, and thanks for the explanation. I'll be even more diligent now when I edit or review edits.
    – stevieb
    Jun 3, 2016 at 13:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/324393/you-have-made-too-many-incorrect-reviews-but-the-review-was-approved-overall
meta.stackoverflow.com
CC-MAIN-2023-23
119746
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:PKAAVGOSNKSPA3XZ4PKNZWFTR247TGAX
<urn:uuid:850f5ec9-a51e-4c1e-b3ca-6047fcf3f852>
2023-06-09T09:12:09Z
151.101.1.69
text/html
sha1:DES4MPOH76Q4DBOBKPZX5CDEHKJBJUQW
<urn:uuid:400e7e48-b5cd-4a9a-8427-014e48a966e7>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/324393/you-have-made-too-many-incorrect-reviews-but-the-review-was-approved-overall
response
<urn:uuid:01d4940c-bf59-4227-86c9-256d76f4ded3>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-23
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-52
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/