Timeline for How to deal with "marginal" answers on review?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 22, 2015 at 3:31 | comment | added | Katherine Villyard | What @Ward said. My understanding is that they're in place because some folks used to farm for badges by clicking the same thing over and over again. But it's not a perfect system, because sometimes an answer that might have something about it that might make you want to comment might have a high rep, or a marginal question might have been soundly panned. | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 22:16 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | The purpose of the review audits is to ensure that people are reviewing carefully. If you go to the trouble on a review to click through to the question and evaluate the post there, that's pretty much the definition of the most careful you can be. So the fact that most audits become obvious when you click through isn't sidestepping the system, and I'm sure (though I havent' looked for them just now) there are posts on meta.SE saying it's ok. | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 21:56 | comment | added | womble Mod | So your opinion is that the review system wants us to identify audits and treat them differently from a legitimate review? | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 14:50 | history | answered | Katherine Villyard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |