Timeline for Confusing review audits caused by adding unrelated tags
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 1, 2022 at 9:01 | answer | added | tripleee | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 12, 2019 at 12:43 | answer | added | Raedwald | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 11, 2017 at 11:31 | answer | added | Suma | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 23, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Sep 29, 2014 at 16:02 | comment | added | Brad Werth | @vba4all I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The current process encourages situations like this. Paying attention would not be impacted by improving the relevancy questions. In my answer, I offer a solution that would encourage paying attention, and help find bad reviews, beyond simple audits. | |
| Sep 29, 2014 at 14:00 | comment | added | user2140173 | It's all about paying attention - that's it. | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 17:41 | answer | added | Brad Werth | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 17:29 | history | edited | Brad Werth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added clarification to highlight the actual question being asked, motivated by information from answers and comments
|
| Sep 26, 2014 at 17:10 | comment | added | Brad Werth | Well, they just look fishy. But I often come across crappy questions with inappropriate tags, as well, so now I have to suss out which are which. I actually went to those questions to remove the incorrect tag, before realizing what was going on. | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 17:05 | comment | added | Servy | Right in your post you've said that it's clear to you that these posts are audits, so apparently they are obvious on their face, which is their goal. If the audit is obvious to someone paying attention, then it has succeeded at its goal. | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 17:05 | history | edited | Shog9StaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 26, 2014 at 17:05 | answer | added | Shog9StaffMod | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 16:56 | comment | added | Brad Werth | Because, as a ruby question, it's almost completely senseless and should be closed. As a scala (for example) question, it probably makes a lot of sense, and should be left open. I am now left to visit the actual question to see what the eff is actually going on. There are 52,551 questions tagged ruby, do we really need to mine the scala questions in order to find good review questions? At least the old way was obvious on it's face, without being adulterated by inaccuracies by the review process itself... | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 16:52 | comment | added | Servy | What's confusing about it? To you, who is paying attention, it's dead obvious what's going on, making passing the audit easy. To someone not paying attention they won't even notice. Where's the problem here? And why are you skipping a post after recognizing it as an audit? Why not simply take the appropriate action and pass the audit? | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 16:48 | history | asked | Brad Werth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |