Timeline for Gaming the review queue audits
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2016 at 21:18 | vote | accept | Karu | ||
| Mar 29, 2016 at 15:09 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/super_user/status/714831915992367106 | ||
| Mar 26, 2016 at 7:07 | comment | added | Scott - Слава Україні | I'm not sure what you're saying about the solitary downvote. ISTM that most of the "bad" (you-should-downvote-this) audits are posts that, in real life, have been deleted. Displaying it to the reviewer as a deleted post would obviously defeat the purpose; displaying it with a score of -5 would be just as bad. They're displayed with low scores so you have to think about them (or game the system), rather than just do a group-think pile-on. | |
| Mar 22, 2016 at 16:09 | answer | added | Shog9 | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 22, 2016 at 16:07 | comment | added | Ramhound | The problem is this. The majority of stuff in the review queue should be downvoted, because it being in the review queue, suggests that somebody flagged it as a quality problem. Good answers and questions don't get reviewed. Stuff added by people with less then 100 reputation is another story, there is a reason that content, gets its own queue. You are right, the audit system has its quirks, but I don't agree it creates a bias. | |
| Mar 22, 2016 at 16:02 | history | edited | Karu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 330 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2016 at 15:53 | history | asked | Karu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |