Return to Question

I occasionally see recommendations here to scrap specific review audit questions. It isn't clear whether there is actually a mechanism to do that.

I assume the system uses the audit examples over and over to audit different users. It would seem logical to have a mechanism where examples that are recognized as bad could be deleted from the library.

On the other hand, the system doesn't need to be perfect to accomplish its purpose. Some percentage of bad examples could be an acceptable price for an automated process. Also, the service life of audit examples might be too short to warrant a mechanism to delete bad ones.

• Is there an existing mechanism to cull audit examples the system gets wrong?
• If so, is this the place to identify them?

Example

One of the answers to the recent question Do rackmount servers need to be in a rack? was used for an audit. The answer was a suggestion to use Ikea Lack tables for a rack. The original question has a number of other identical suggestions, including a comment by Journeyman Geek, and tombull89's answer, complete with picture.

The answer was picked for the audit because it received 12 upvotes (which likely occurred because it was an early answer and the first answer to mention the tables). In the audit, however, it is presented as a new answer to an older question.

As a "new" answer, it probably should be deleted because it does nothing more than regurgitate an idea already mentioned several times, and covered well in another answer; it adds no additional value. It also contains an admission by the author that someone else had already suggested the idea, so it's really just a "me too" post in this context. Responding to the audit appropriately produces the wrong result.

Example 2

A four year old link-only software recommendation that received 14 upvotes and was the accepted answer. It was presented as a new answer, which is unacceptable today. I got dinged immediately upon posting a comment suggesting that the author read the canonical Meta post on software recommendation answers. Even if there is no mechanism to identify and cull bad audit questions, at least the selection bot should be smart enough to skip answers from years ago that contain just two sentences and a link.

I occasionally see recommendations here to scrap specific review audit questions. It isn't clear whether there is actually a mechanism to do that.

I assume the system uses the audit examples over and over to audit different users. It would seem logical to have a mechanism where examples that are recognized as bad could be deleted from the library.

On the other hand, the system doesn't need to be perfect to accomplish its purpose. Some percentage of bad examples could be an acceptable price for an automated process. Also, the service life of audit examples might be too short to warrant a mechanism to delete bad ones.

• Is there an existing mechanism to cull audit examples the system gets wrong?
• If so, is this the place to identify them?

Example

One of the answers to the recent question Do rackmount servers need to be in a rack? was used for an audit. The answer was a suggestion to use Ikea Lack tables for a rack. The original question has a number of other identical suggestions, including a comment by Journeyman Geek, and tombull89's answer, complete with picture.

The answer was picked for the audit because it received 12 upvotes (which likely occurred because it was an early answer and the first answer to mention the tables). In the audit, however, it is presented as a new answer to an older question.

As a "new" answer, it probably should be deleted because it does nothing more than regurgitate an idea already mentioned several times, and covered well in another answer; it adds no additional value. It also contains an admission by the author that someone else had already suggested the idea, so it's really just a "me too" post in this context. Responding to the audit appropriately produces the wrong result.

Example 2

A four year old link-only software recommendation that received 14 upvotes and was the accepted answer. It was presented as a new answer, which is unacceptable today. I got dinged immediately upon posting a comment suggesting that the author read the canonical Meta post on software recommendation answers. Even if there is no mechanism to identify and cull bad audit questions, at least the selection bot should be smart enough to skip answers from years ago that contain just two sentences and a link.

I occasionally see recommendations here to scrap specific review audit questions. It isn't clear whether there is actually a mechanism to do that.

I assume the system uses the audit examples over and over to audit different users. It would seem logical to have a mechanism where examples that are recognized as bad could be deleted from the library.

On the other hand, the system doesn't need to be perfect to accomplish its purpose. Some percentage of bad examples could be an acceptable price for an automated process. Also, the service life of audit examples might be too short to warrant a mechanism to delete bad ones.

• Is there an existing mechanism to cull audit examples the system gets wrong?
• If so, is this the place to identify them?

Example

One of the answers to the recent question Do rackmount servers need to be in a rack? was used for an audit. The answer was a suggestion to use Ikea Lack tables for a rack. The original question has a number of other identical suggestions, including a comment by Journeyman Geek, and tombull89's answer, complete with picture.

The answer was picked for the audit because it received 12 upvotes (which likely occurred because it was an early answer and the first answer to mention the tables). In the audit, however, it is presented as a new answer to an older question.

As a "new" answer, it probably should be deleted because it does nothing more than regurgitate an idea already mentioned several times, and covered well in another answer; it adds no additional value. It also contains an admission by the author that someone else had already suggested the idea, so it's really just a "me too" post in this context. Responding to the audit appropriately produces the wrong result.

I occasionally see recommendations here to scrap specific review audit questions. It isn't clear whether there is actually a mechanism to do that.

I assume the system uses the audit examples over and over to audit different users. It would seem logical to have a mechanism where examples that are recognized as bad could be deleted from the library.

On the other hand, the system doesn't need to be perfect to accomplish its purpose. Some percentage of bad examples could be an acceptable price for an automated process. Also, the service life of audit examples might be too short to warrant a mechanism to delete bad ones.

• Is there an existing mechanism to cull audit examples the system gets wrong?
• If so, is this the place to identify them?

Example

One of the answers to the recent question Do rackmount servers need to be in a rack? was used for an audit. The answer was a suggestion to use Ikea Lack tables for a rack. The original question has a number of other identical suggestions, including a comment by Journeyman Geek, and tombull89's answer, complete with picture.

The answer was picked for the audit because it received 12 upvotes (which likely occurred because it was an early answer and the first answer to mention the tables). In the audit, however, it is presented as a new answer to an older question.

As a "new" answer, it probably should be deleted because it does nothing more than regurgitate an idea already mentioned several times, and covered well in another answer; it adds no additional value. It also contains an admission by the author that someone else had already suggested the idea, so it's really just a "me too" post in this context. Responding to the audit appropriately produces the wrong result.

Example 2

A four year old link-only software recommendation that received 14 upvotes and was the accepted answer. It was presented as a new answer, which is unacceptable today. I got dinged immediately upon posting a comment suggesting that the author read the canonical Meta post on software recommendation answers. Even if there is no mechanism to identify and cull bad audit questions, at least the selection bot should be smart enough to skip answers from years ago that contain just two sentences and a link.

I occasionally see recommendations here for specific audit questions that should be scrapped. It isn't clear whether there is a mechanism to cull bad questions that I assume are selected by some automated means. If so, here is another recommendation: one of the answers to Do rackmount servers need to be in a rack?

The question has a number of suggestions to use Ikea Lack tables, including a comment by Journeyman Geek, and tombull89's answer, complete with picture.

The answer selected for use in the audit was probably picked because it received 12 upvotes, which it likely got because it was an early answer, and apparently the first to mention the Ikea tables in an answer. In the audit, however, it is presented as a new answer.

As a "new" answer, it probably should be deleted because it does nothing more than regurgitate an idea already mentioned several times, and covered well in an answer. The audit answer is pretty paltry and adds no additional value. It also contains an admission by the author that someone else had already suggested the idea, so it's really just a "me too" post in this context.

I didn't flag it for deletion, but left a comment explaining why it wasn't a good answer. That failed the audit because the upvotes had identified it as a good answer, and any comment is taken as negative (which in this case, it was).

This makes a bad audit example because modifying it and presenting it as a new answer takes it out of the original context. While it attracted upvotes when, and in the sequence, it was originally posted, as a "new" answer, it's a bad one.

Is there a mechanism to cull audit examples the system gets wrong? If so, is this the place to identify them?

I occasionally see recommendations here to scrap specific review audit questions. It isn't clear whether there is actually a mechanism to do that.

I assume the system uses the audit examples over and over to audit different users. It would seem logical to have a mechanism where examples that are recognized as bad could be deleted from the library.

On the other hand, the system doesn't need to be perfect to accomplish its purpose. Some percentage of bad examples could be an acceptable price for an automated process. Also, the service life of audit examples might be too short to warrant a mechanism to delete bad ones.

• Is there an existing mechanism to cull audit examples the system gets wrong?
• If so, is this the place to identify them?

Example

One of the answers to the recent question Do rackmount servers need to be in a rack? was used for an audit. The answer was a suggestion to use Ikea Lack tables for a rack. The original question has a number of other identical suggestions, including a comment by Journeyman Geek, and tombull89's answer, complete with picture.

The answer was picked for the audit because it received 12 upvotes (which likely occurred because it was an early answer and the first answer to mention the tables). In the audit, however, it is presented as a new answer to an older question.

As a "new" answer, it probably should be deleted because it does nothing more than regurgitate an idea already mentioned several times, and covered well in another answer; it adds no additional value. It also contains an admission by the author that someone else had already suggested the idea, so it's really just a "me too" post in this context. Responding to the audit appropriately produces the wrong result.