Return to Question

As a continuation of my comments here, which weren't understood too well and are more suitable as a separate question/discussion, I'm wondering why does anyone think review audits are any useful on this network?

They are in my opinion implemented very poorly. Some examples from different queues:

• the worst out of the ones I have access to are Suggested edits, by far. All they do is they show some non-comprehensible mix of words added from combination of other question(s) to the audited question. I've seen extremely weird phrases, like "Windows install horse" added to the title or question body. You have to be basically autoclicking Looks ok or completely drunk to ever fail them. They could have as well not been coded, IMO.

Here are some examples of "audits based on actual edit proposals":

1. "enter image description of citation style with here": The spelling really got improved there.
2. "in abu dhabi call me Excel": "removed noise" is quite ironic edit reason, which is the only thing copied from actual edits. "abu dhabi" is 100% taken from some random spam posts (not edits) - perfect place to take audit mumbling from.
3. "How to excel stores but to install wsa OpenWRT on github device Hyper-V?": That comma got surely replaced with semicolon there.

• Low quality posts haven't been much better, at least since I got rights to use that. 90+% of audits were obvious spam, deleted from spam flags. What is that exactly checking? IMO questions deleted as spam should be skipped there as that's not the purpose of the queue and you can't even flag there.
• the choice for other queues isn't great either. I had cases of older questions appearing in e.g. First questions or Close votes queues which didn't really meet current website standards. E.g. very obvious upvoted software recommendation request that I tried to flag and failed the audit. Questions like that not being moved causes problems in general (attracting more questions of the same type mostly), but at least it could not mess with audits. I'm wondering if the choice is automatic - looks like it is. It should be manual if there should be older questions as well.

On top of that, there are some absurd implementations discouraging you from using certain features:

• comments can be written on audits of deleted questions that are supposed to fail. So if you're new to the queues, you can write a lengthy comment just to get an "it's an audit" sort of error when submitting. The way around it is ofc to just type a short comment and submit, then edit in case it's real (or to open the question in new tab), but I think it should state it's an audit as soon as you start, not finish, typing.

As a continuation of my comments here, which weren't understood too well and are more suitable as a separate question/discussion, I'm wondering why does anyone think review audits are any useful on this network?

They are in my opinion implemented very poorly. Some examples from different queues:

• the worst out of the ones I have access to are Suggested edits, by far. All they do is they show some non-comprehensible mix of words added from combination of other question(s) to the audited question. I've seen extremely weird phrases, like "Windows install horse" added to the title or question body. You have to be basically autoclicking Looks ok or completely drunk to ever fail them. They could have as well not been coded, IMO.

Here are some examples of "audits based on actual edit proposals":

1. "enter image description of citation style with here": The spelling really got improved there.
2. "in abu dhabi call me Excel": "removed noise" is quite ironic edit reason, which is the only thing copied from actual edits. "abu dhabi" is 100% taken from some random spam posts (not edits) - perfect place to take audit mumbling from.
3. "How to excel stores but to install wsa OpenWRT on github device Hyper-V?": That comma got surely replaced with semicolon there.

Also, some references to old similar meta questions:

1. Are the suggested edit audits too easy? - one solution proposed, other comments suggest it's to filter out basically autoclick scripts and people who don't even bother looking at the edit at all.
2. Stop using real accounts in suggested edit audits - this speaks about a problem I haven't touched - real accounts being used for the mumbling. If anyone paid attention to usernames in the 1st place - IMO last thing to observe, then you can also notice the same people are shown as "editors" over and over again.

Not much or anything has improved since they've been asked.

• Low quality posts haven't been much better, at least since I got rights to use that. 90+% of audits were obvious spam, deleted from spam flags. What is that exactly checking? IMO questions deleted as spam should be skipped there as that's not the purpose of the queue and you can't even flag there.
• the choice for other queues isn't great either. I had cases of older questions appearing in e.g. First questions or Close votes queues which didn't really meet current website standards. E.g. very obvious upvoted software recommendation request that I tried to flag and failed the audit. Questions like that not being moved causes problems in general (attracting more questions of the same type mostly), but at least it could not mess with audits. I'm wondering if the choice is automatic - looks like it is. It should be manual if there should be older questions as well.

On top of that, there are some absurd implementations discouraging you from using certain features:

• comments can be written on audits of deleted questions that are supposed to fail. So if you're new to the queues, you can write a lengthy comment just to get an "it's an audit" sort of error when submitting. The way around it is ofc to just type a short comment and submit, then edit in case it's real (or to open the question in new tab), but I think it should state it's an audit as soon as you start, not finish, typing.

As a continuation of my comments here, which weren't understood too well and are more suitable as a separate question/discussion, I'm wondering why does anyone think review audits are any useful on this network?

They are in my opinion implemented very poorly. Some examples from different queues:

• the worst out of the ones I have access to are Suggested edits, by far. All they do is they show some non-comprehensible mix of words added from combination of other question(s) to the audited question. I've seen extremely weird phrases, like "Windows install horse" added to the title or question body. You have to be basically autoclicking Looks ok or completely drunk to ever fail them. They could have as well not been coded, IMO.

Here are some examples of "audits based on actual edit proposals":

1. "enter image description of citation style with here":
2. "in abu dhabi call me Excel":
3. "How to excel stores but to install wsa OpenWRT on github device Hyper-V?":

• Low quality posts haven't been much better, at least since I got rights to use that. 90+% of audits were obvious spam, deleted from spam flags. What is that exactly checking? IMO questions deleted as spam should be skipped there as that's not the purpose of the queue and you can't even flag there.
• the choice for other queues isn't great either. I had cases of older questions appearing in e.g. First questions or Close votes queues which didn't really meet current website standards. E.g. very obvious upvoted software recommendation request that I tried to flag and failed the audit. Questions like that not being moved causes problems in general (attracting more questions of the same type mostly), but at least it could not mess with audits. I'm wondering if the choice is automatic - looks like it is. It should be manual if there should be older questions as well.

On top of that, there are some absurd implementations discouraging you from using certain features:

• comments can be written on audits of deleted questions that are supposed to fail. So if you're new to the queues, you can write a lengthy comment just to get an "it's an audit" sort of error when submitting. The way around it is ofc to just type a short comment and submit, then edit in case it's real (or to open the question in new tab), but I think it should state it's an audit as soon as you start, not finish, typing.

As a continuation of my comments here, which weren't understood too well and are more suitable as a separate question/discussion, I'm wondering why does anyone think review audits are any useful on this network?

They are in my opinion implemented very poorly. Some examples from different queues:

• the worst out of the ones I have access to are Suggested edits, by far. All they do is they show some non-comprehensible mix of words added from combination of other question(s) to the audited question. I've seen extremely weird phrases, like "Windows install horse" added to the title or question body. You have to be basically autoclicking Looks ok or completely drunk to ever fail them. They could have as well not been coded, IMO.

Here are some examples of "audits based on actual edit proposals":

1. "enter image description of citation style with here": The spelling really got improved there.
2. "in abu dhabi call me Excel": "removed noise" is quite ironic edit reason, which is the only thing copied from actual edits. "abu dhabi" is 100% taken from some random spam posts (not edits) - perfect place to take audit mumbling from.
3. "How to excel stores but to install wsa OpenWRT on github device Hyper-V?": That comma got surely replaced with semicolon there.

• Low quality posts haven't been much better, at least since I got rights to use that. 90+% of audits were obvious spam, deleted from spam flags. What is that exactly checking? IMO questions deleted as spam should be skipped there as that's not the purpose of the queue and you can't even flag there.
• the choice for other queues isn't great either. I had cases of older questions appearing in e.g. First questions or Close votes queues which didn't really meet current website standards. E.g. very obvious upvoted software recommendation request that I tried to flag and failed the audit. Questions like that not being moved causes problems in general (attracting more questions of the same type mostly), but at least it could not mess with audits. I'm wondering if the choice is automatic - looks like it is. It should be manual if there should be older questions as well.

On top of that, there are some absurd implementations discouraging you from using certain features:

• comments can be written on audits of deleted questions that are supposed to fail. So if you're new to the queues, you can write a lengthy comment just to get an "it's an audit" sort of error when submitting. The way around it is ofc to just type a short comment and submit, then edit in case it's real (or to open the question in new tab), but I think it should state it's an audit as soon as you start, not finish, typing.

As a continuation of my comments here, which weren't understood too well and are more suitable as a separate question/discussion, I'm wondering why does anyone think review audits are any useful on this network?

They are in my opinion implemented very poorly. Some examples from different queues:

• the worst out of the ones I have access to are Suggested edits, by far. All they do is they show some non-comprehensible mix of words added from combination of other question(s) to the audited question. I've seen extremely weird phrases, like "Windows install horse" added to the title or question body. You have to be basically autoclicking Looks ok or completely drunk to ever fail them. They could have as well not been coded, IMO. I'll add some examples once I get them again.
• Low quality posts haven't been much better, at least since I got rights to use that. 90+% of audits were obvious spam, deleted from spam flags. What is that exactly checking? IMO questions deleted as spam should be skipped there as that's not the purpose of the queue and you can't even flag there.
• the choice for other queues isn't great either. I had cases of older questions appearing in e.g. First questions or Close votes queues which didn't really meet current website standards. E.g. very obvious upvoted software recommendation request that I tried to flag and failed the audit. Questions like that not being moved causes problems in general (attracting more questions of the same type mostly), but at least it could not mess with audits. I'm wondering if the choice is automatic - looks like it is. It should be manual if there should be older questions as well.

On top of that, there are some absurd implementations discouraging you from using certain features:

• comments can be written on audits of deleted questions that are supposed to fail. So if you're new to the queues, you can write a lengthy comment just to get an "it's an audit" sort of error when submitting. The way around it is ofc to just type a short comment and submit, then edit in case it's real (or to open the question in new tab), but I think it should state it's an audit as soon as you start, not finish, typing.

As a continuation of my comments here, which weren't understood too well and are more suitable as a separate question/discussion, I'm wondering why does anyone think review audits are any useful on this network?

They are in my opinion implemented very poorly. Some examples from different queues:

• the worst out of the ones I have access to are Suggested edits, by far. All they do is they show some non-comprehensible mix of words added from combination of other question(s) to the audited question. I've seen extremely weird phrases, like "Windows install horse" added to the title or question body. You have to be basically autoclicking Looks ok or completely drunk to ever fail them. They could have as well not been coded, IMO.

Here are some examples of "audits based on actual edit proposals":

1. "enter image description of citation style with here":
2. "in abu dhabi call me Excel":
3. "How to excel stores but to install wsa OpenWRT on github device Hyper-V?":

• Low quality posts haven't been much better, at least since I got rights to use that. 90+% of audits were obvious spam, deleted from spam flags. What is that exactly checking? IMO questions deleted as spam should be skipped there as that's not the purpose of the queue and you can't even flag there.
• the choice for other queues isn't great either. I had cases of older questions appearing in e.g. First questions or Close votes queues which didn't really meet current website standards. E.g. very obvious upvoted software recommendation request that I tried to flag and failed the audit. Questions like that not being moved causes problems in general (attracting more questions of the same type mostly), but at least it could not mess with audits. I'm wondering if the choice is automatic - looks like it is. It should be manual if there should be older questions as well.

On top of that, there are some absurd implementations discouraging you from using certain features:

• comments can be written on audits of deleted questions that are supposed to fail. So if you're new to the queues, you can write a lengthy comment just to get an "it's an audit" sort of error when submitting. The way around it is ofc to just type a short comment and submit, then edit in case it's real (or to open the question in new tab), but I think it should state it's an audit as soon as you start, not finish, typing.