3

I recently failed an audit (linked here). I feel this is unfair because I did go click the link and went to go downvote it, which would have been my action to take. When I clicked the link to the answer, it shows that it was voluntarily deleted by the author. I suppose I could have clicked Skip, but I was going to downvote it. The review audit needs to be tweaked so that if a person attempts to downvote it or even go look at it, then the system knows you tried to take an action. Because you cannot downvote it within the Low Quality Queue, people may be inadvertantly caught in the failed audit.

I have complained about the Low Quality Queue recently at this link. It was changed to Looks OK, but based on that interpretation, I should have downvoted and clicked Looks OK/Good. There appears to be a disconnect.

5
  • 3
    That particular post was spam. It was an answer consisting only of a link to a service, by a new user, which was also advertised in their profile: stackoverflow.com/users/2857172/anin . I don't see many circumstances under which that would be considered an acceptable answer. In fact, I'll give this a little bit and then destroy the user as a spammer.
    – Brad Larson Mod
    Jun 6, 2014 at 17:58
  • So you visited the post, found it was deleted, then said that the post was ok, failing the audit? And the only actions you can take in that queue are "looks good", "edit", and "close" (and skip). How would traveling to the post be a decision?
    – gunr2171
    Jun 6, 2014 at 18:01
  • @gunr2171: You can downvote posts that don't necessarily require deletion. The Low quality queue sometimes has posts that are not required to be deleted but are low quality or not useful.. hence a downvote. At that point to clear the review you either ignore it, click Looks OK (which it's not OK), or Skip. If traveling to the post is not a decision, then a link to it should not be provided. Jun 6, 2014 at 18:02
  • @staticx, so if you found the answer was deleted (so you couldn't downvote), why did you not skip or delete? If something is deleted, it's never ok to say "looks good". The audit expected you to delete it, or skip it. You didn't do either.
    – gunr2171
    Jun 6, 2014 at 18:05
  • @gunr2171: because I thought it was deleted during my review. It doesn't tell you when it was deleted Jun 6, 2014 at 18:48

1 Answer 1

5

No. That answer is not okay. It is a link-only answer, which doesn't really attempt to answer the question. If the link disappears, then the answer is worthless.

One should recommend deletion for answers like that, then go to the question itself and downvote if one deems it necessary.

13
  • It did not say it was OK, but based on the advice given in the second paragraph of my post, you have the option of recommending deletion, skipping, editing, or going to it and downvoting. After downvoting, your options are a) Ignore, don't click anything; b) Looks OK; c) Skip. My argument in the previous post linked was that it is NOT OK. So why Looks OK at all? Jun 6, 2014 at 18:00
  • 6
    @staticx The post should have been deleted. You voted to not delete it. That was the wrong action. You therefore failed the audit. The LQP queue is a queue in which you decide whether or not the post should be deleted, much like the close vote queue is there to decide if the post should be closed. If you downvote a post that should be closed and then vote to leave it open you will (rightly) fail an audit in the CV queue. That you did something doesn't mean you did the right thing in that queue.
    – Servy
    Jun 6, 2014 at 18:25
  • @Servy: why would I recommend deletion when it already was deleted? Jun 6, 2014 at 18:49
  • 2
    @staticx Because the post meets the criteria for deletion. Why would you vote to not delete the post when the post very obviously should be deleted?
    – Servy
    Jun 6, 2014 at 18:50
  • @Servy: because I already visited the post and realized it was deleted. Voting to delete would defy logic. Jun 6, 2014 at 18:55
  • 1
    @staticx Voting to not delete something that you know should be deleted defies logic. By saying that it looks good you were asserting that this post shouldn't be deleted. That was incorrect, and so you were informed that you took the incorrect action. In the future refrain from voting to not delete content that you think should be deleted to avoid being review banned.
    – Servy
    Jun 6, 2014 at 18:56
  • @Servy: I understand what you are saying. But that would only seek to avoid the automated ban period. Not necessarily take the right action. Jun 6, 2014 at 19:00
  • @staticx You think voting to not delete a post that should be deleted is the right action? You think it should be deleted. Voting to not delete it is, by your own logic, not the right action. It's not just appeasing the auditing mechanism. Even if the post isn't an auidit, the correct action for this post is for it to be deleted, so that's what you should do. If it really bothers you to review a post that has already been "resolved", then skip it, rather than specifically indicating that you feel the wrong action should be taken.
    – Servy
    Jun 6, 2014 at 19:04
  • 1
    @Servy: If I clicked Skip, I would have failed the audit. I guess I should have closed the Firefox tab Jun 6, 2014 at 19:15
  • @staticx That assumption is false. Skipping doesn't fail an audit.
    – Servy
    Jun 6, 2014 at 19:16
  • 3
    @staticx, There is no shame in using “Skip”, nor will it fail an audit.
    – gunr2171
    Jun 6, 2014 at 19:23
  • @Servy: it does. it has happened to me Jun 6, 2014 at 19:23
  • 2
    @staticx You are mistaken. It will tell you that the post is an audit, but it isn't recorded as a failure (nor as a pass).
    – Servy
    Jun 6, 2014 at 19:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/258666/failed-audit-due-to-looks-ok
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-27
121643
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:452I4WGMVTQEY7UJYOLXM3CW4AVV7QRE
<urn:uuid:6b975035-69e0-43db-8276-f8ac3ed22776>
2022-07-01T09:13:25Z
151.101.129.69
text/html
sha1:BCPMYU27KK7FFD3ENJ3QGVOPTCGXZ345
<urn:uuid:a84058e4-9bfc-475c-847d-6d306ca42f4a>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/258666/failed-audit-due-to-looks-ok
response
<urn:uuid:4b3b9b19-8ba6-4af2-ba69-0a44cc3016ad>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-27
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June/July 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-140
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-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/