Timeline for Why are review audits so bad and are there any plans to improve them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2023 at 8:01 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Aug 21, 2023 at 13:44 | comment | added | Ramhound | @Destroy666 - The original text likely came from spam. These audit edits are suppose to be easy to spot. Here is the truth. The entire review system needs a ton of work. The correct action is often not even an option depending on which queue you are talking about. I agree that Audits should be based on actual audits, against contributions, which were already declined. However, not everyone has a problem not approving an edit propsal that is incomplete, so even that has problems. | |
| Aug 21, 2023 at 12:17 | comment | added | Tetsujin | Suggested Edit audits are created by the bot. They're supposed to be easy. | |
| Aug 21, 2023 at 12:16 | comment | added | Destroy666 |
As for paying attention, you can replace the whole edit with long string of WWWWWWWWs as well and it'd be nearly as effective IMO, but still checking for any sort of attention and eliminating e.g. scripts. You could also use a smarter algorithm constructing sentences that make some sense or some real scenarios actually based on past edit reviews (although this is less reliable with only 2 passes required). The question is what's the effectiveness of audits supposed to be. IMO it's very low in that queue right now, stopping only bot users.
|
|
| Aug 21, 2023 at 12:09 | comment | added | Destroy666 | But based in what way? E.g. the shown "abu dhabi" part of the title - where do you think that came from? | |
| Aug 21, 2023 at 12:07 | comment | added | Ramhound | They are based on actual edits to actual contributions just not the question it was applied to, their entire purpose, is to verify you are paying attention | |
| Aug 21, 2023 at 12:03 | comment | added | Destroy666 | @Ramhound please explain why you wrote these edit audits are based on actual proposals then as I'm still not following where that conclusion came from. | |
| Aug 21, 2023 at 12:00 | history | edited | Destroy666 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add references
|
| Aug 21, 2023 at 11:58 | comment | added | Ramhound | Yes; I am fairly confident in my ability to tell the difference between the quality of contributions that a human generates and the absolute trash that ChatGPT generates. I am not sure what your point is to be honest. | |
| Aug 21, 2023 at 11:27 | history | edited | Destroy666 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I can't...
|
| Aug 21, 2023 at 11:19 | comment | added | Destroy666 | If you are fairly sure then I have no questions. I provided 3 examples of very useful audits now. Are you still sure about that? And are you sure then about your AI detections being on point, as you said somewhere else? Even the most obvious CTRL + C CTRL +V ChatGPTs require a bit more knowledge to notice that they're created by a machine than this nonsense mumbling. | |
| Aug 21, 2023 at 11:16 | history | edited | Destroy666 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add examples
|
| Aug 21, 2023 at 10:44 | answer | added | Tetsujin | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 8, 2023 at 14:45 | comment | added | Ramhound | I am fairly sure, that those audits, are based on actual edit proposals. I have for years opened the question, in another tab, while I perform a review. By doing that for every rule, meet the spirit of the intent behind an audit, despite their obvious flaws at times. | |
| Aug 8, 2023 at 4:46 | history | asked | Destroy666 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |