2

Failed this Audit. Which is fine, as I seem to fail them all the time lately. But the description of why the post was deleted covers all possible topics--I think inciting insurrection might be listed as one of the possible reasons for deletion...

But I have no idea which one of them. The text in the answer answers the question. The link goes to a website that's junk, but also answers the question, and appears to be no more junk than most other "how does the web work" websites.

So I'm honestly interested. Is it spam I'm missing, or some degree of specificity where the answer is actually incorrect?

EDIT: oh, so I really was posting not because I cared about the failure, but as a suggestion that "narrowing" down the reasons for the original deletion seemed like a good idea that would only improve review skills, instead of leaving me wondering each time. Just wanted to make sure that that point, from the title, wasn't lost.

Review Fail: enter image description here

Page it links to: enter image description here

  • 10
    "Which is fine, as I seem to fail them all the time lately." That's...not fine at all. Failing one very infrequently is fine, but if you're failing them a lot, that's a big problem. Because it means you're reviewing incorrectly for reviews that the system doesn't already know how to handle, and you're doing it "all the time". – Servy Dec 12 '18 at 22:29
  • 2
    But yes, that does look like spam. LQP isn't for evaluating the technical merits of posts. A post being wrong isn't reason to delete it. – Servy Dec 12 '18 at 22:32
  • 1
    @Servy so what aspect of it makes you say "it looks like spam"? I suspect that's the missing quirk in my quick evaluations. – Cooper Buckingham Dec 12 '18 at 22:43
  • 4
    The second paragraph is a copy of the text on the linked site but doesn't cite it correctly. That alone is enough reason to delete it. – BDL Dec 12 '18 at 22:49
  • 4
    @BDL yeah, that seems to be what folks claim most of the time. Someone says it's clearly spam, then someone says "well, it's not spam, it has a chunk of text copy and pasted, so that's plagiarism". I don't see plagiarism listed in the possible reasons for deletion. And I'm not personally going to spend the time to copy and paste every sentence into google, so that's why I'm asking. Reviewing probably isn't for me, but this one made me interested. :-) – Cooper Buckingham Dec 12 '18 at 22:52
  • 4
    @CooperBuckingham If they're the author of the linked page, it's spam, if they're not, it's plagiarism. Either merits a moderation action, and you said none was needed. – Servy Dec 12 '18 at 22:54
  • 3
    @Cooper we don't expect your to type every sentence of every answer into Google. The answer linked to the page it was plagiarizing from/spamming. All you had to do was visit the link and you would realize that it definitely does not Look OK. At that point if you were unsure of what to do, you could skip or look for guidance on meta. Instead you said it Looks OK. – user4639281 Dec 13 '18 at 1:11
  • 2
    I mean if you dont want to put forth the effort required to review... dont review. As for more information if you dont understand why you failed an audit, the general course of action is to ask why on meta. That works for everyone else... – user4639281 Dec 13 '18 at 1:18
  • 3
    I think you're drastically overstating the amount of effort this would require to review correctly, and that (along with the fact that you "seem to fail them all the time lately") belies how truly little effort you think is expected of you when reviewing. – user4639281 Dec 13 '18 at 1:23
  • 1
    I think you have won the “I’m not going to read external websites” debate soundedly. But I’m posting here to suggest that the reason for deletion be more specific in in the audit fail message in order to provide more useful feedback and learning opportunities. – Cooper Buckingham Dec 13 '18 at 1:26
  • 1
    There is no reason "Reason For Deletion" recorded when a post is deleted, except in some very specific situations and I'm fairly certain that in these situations the system will provide an augmented audit failure message to that effect. The rest of the time such a reason would have to be inferred by the system, which is what you're supposed to do. So I don't think this request is practical, nor do I think that the end result would be more useful than the current system. – user4639281 Dec 13 '18 at 1:36
  • 3
    @cooper so what I understand here is you basically want users to explain their delete votes? Because short of that, you can't really get the outcome you look for. And 5 users could delete a question with 5 different reasons. How do we determine which one is 'the correct one' to display as an audit? It seems that we'll require manual intervention to determine the reason, which isn't how audits are picked now :/ – Patrice Dec 13 '18 at 2:39
  • 1
    @Cooper what if all of the reasons used are applicable? – user4639281 Dec 13 '18 at 3:34
  • 2
    Awesome. Thanks. Yvette. So it turns out we did know why it was deleted. And it turns out that of 4 or 5 people to claim they knew, and claim various obvious things, many were wrong, and got all up in arms about. I think it’s safe to say that there’s room for improvement there, and I hope more folks can manage to see outside the walls. :-) – Cooper Buckingham Dec 13 '18 at 4:04
  • 2
    @YvetteColomb Anytime you're in a review queue (in which one of your main purposes is to find spam) and you see answers clearly pushing people to go to some external resource (that's not a well know official resource for the topic at hand, like this random blog post) you should be highly suspicious of spam. You shouldn't just immediately spam flag it, but you should have sirens going off in your head and be looking closely for other red flags. In this case, more immediately pop up and it becomes clear that it's spam. If you can't tell that this is spam that's a problem when reviewing. – Servy Dec 14 '18 at 15:27
5

There's two types of posts put into the audit pool. Those deleted as low quality and those deleted as spam (which includes posts deleted with a helpful spam flag).

The only reason this post was used as an audit, was because it was deleted as spam. (which includes posts deleted with a helpful spam flag)

enter image description here

That user account was deleted for spamming the Stack Overflow with links to that site. This really is something beyond the reviewers knowledge.

It is for this reason I have requested this in August:

Can we have a mod tool to prevent posts from being selected for review audits, without invalidating flags?

To be completely honest, I don't think this is obvious spam to a reviewer. The site looks legitimate when landing on it. There's nothing to indicate the OP was the author of the linked page. There's many sites offering good information about programming. There's nothing obvious from this link, asking for money, to indicate it's a nefarious site.

Although some of the post is plagiarised from the link. Plagiarism would warrant a comment and/or mod flag, not deletion on the low quality review queue, as it currently stands.

Posts deleted for plagiarism are not added to the queue (it's automated). So to pass audits, the only way is to view a post as spam or low quality, not plagiarism.

Also, this is how I see the site - adblockers. Doesn't look spammy.

enter image description here

Update:

This post would no longer make it to the review queue.

Additionally, I've added checks to ensure that only posts which were actually deleted by the system in response to spam flags are used for this purpose - this should avoid situations where posts deleted for other reasons (for instance, due to the destruction of their author's account) are used. Such posts are often offensive, confusing or otherwise misleading in the context of an audit, and thus relying on confirmed spam should avoid some unnecessary distress for reviewers here.

  • 3
    This audit has nothing to do with spam. The review queue was LQ. It was, that question doesn't need more crap answers. He didn't look when rejecting a flag from a concerned SO user, that's why he failed the audit. That spam is also often low quality is no accident. Notable as well, having a mod turn spam into a link at meta is one way for spam to be successful. – Hans Passant Dec 13 '18 at 3:46
  • Or maybe all audits should prompt the banner "warning, this post was marked as potential spam by our system" – Cœur Dec 13 '18 at 3:53
  • @Cœur yeh. I think if we could pop some of these posts out of the audit pool it would be helpful. – Yvette Colomb Dec 13 '18 at 3:56
  • 6
    It is definitely low-quality, @Hans - but audits for LQ review are drawn from spam, so it was the spam flag that put it in front of this reviewer, not the quality. Nevertheless, it makes an exceptionally fine audit for this queue. – Shog9 Dec 13 '18 at 4:15
  • @Shog9 the fact the answer didn't answer the question has no bearing on why it was deleted or was an audit. This is a flaw in the system. As we discussed in TL. I think there's issues around this. – Yvette Colomb Dec 13 '18 at 18:27
  • 5
    I think it's a fine audit because it should've prompted an appropriate response in review, @Yvette. It's probably spam, it's arguably not even an answer, it's definitely low-quality and it definitely adds nothing useful to the question: there were numerous reasons why a reviewer should've chosen "Delete" or - if they were feeling particularly generous - "edit". There were no good reasons to choose "Looks OK", save for not having read the answer carefully and considered it in context. That makes it a good audit: it tests that the reviewer is paying attention. – Shog9 Dec 13 '18 at 20:22
  • I still read now the entire answer and don’t know what you’re talking about with it being low quality. It answers the question. Oddly and awkwardly. But I think there’s a huge disconnect somewhere with what paying attention gets. So just head’s up. – Cooper Buckingham Dec 14 '18 at 0:21
  • @CooperBuckingham Shog is referring to the fact that the answer doesn't answer the question. I'm referring to what put it in the audit pool. – Yvette Colomb Dec 14 '18 at 16:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/377782/need-better-descriptions-for-why-post-was-deleted-in-audit
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-43
143121
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ZKC36LTPUHXDQURAGSRFSF2V77JAFR52
<urn:uuid:13e10523-cd92-4c90-9e42-b5ee90f6f815>
2019-10-21T15:42:00Z
151.101.129.69
text/html
sha1:BZFZ77HG5PCEFHQ6EMH76YYYDBUOG7MQ
<urn:uuid:41ea9dce-7aa6-419f-aff1-7617fc309a80>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/377782/need-better-descriptions-for-why-post-was-deleted-in-audit
response
<urn:uuid:21178ea1-91cf-4572-8590-a25b18765187>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-43
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-24.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/