Timeline for Advice on failed audit
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:37 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Sep 7, 2014 at 16:33 | comment | added | Brad | Yes, I believe you are way off base here. You should take time to understand a question and the core of what someone is trying to communicate rather than going through a checklist of hard and fast rules which were intended to be guidelines. Programmers treating humans and human communication like computers and strict protocols are eating away at the usefulness and comunity aspect of Stack Overflow. We can keep Stack Overflow and related sites clean without resorting to over-moderation. | |
| Sep 5, 2014 at 11:49 | answer | added | user743382 | timeline score: 21 | |
| Sep 5, 2014 at 11:30 | comment | added | Qantas 94 Heavy | The thing is that different language "subgroups" have slightly different standards on whether a post is close-worthy or not. If you don't have knowledge of the language in question (e.g. in an audit), it can be hard to understand it in context. | |
| Sep 5, 2014 at 9:41 | comment | added | gnat | "Bring a “human factor” into review audit composition/selection" | |
| Sep 5, 2014 at 8:05 | history | edited | Cjxcz Odjcayrwl |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 5, 2014 at 7:13 | comment | added | Reto Koradi | It's hard to be unbiased if you already know the "correct" response, but I think I would have failed this one as well. "Too Broad" was my first reaction. | |
| Sep 5, 2014 at 4:17 | history | asked | Brad Werth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |