I have just had a review audit failure with How can I reduce the number of arguments I have to pass around in Haskell?. It may have the basis of a good question but as written it is seeking opinions or a discussion. The narrative part of the question concludes with "What's the "right" way to do this in the Haskell world?" and so I voted to close the question as primarily based on opinions.

I cannot click on the "I understand" button because I do not understand.

What is the best way to disagree with a review audit? There are several similar questions but none have clear answers.

Almost a year ago this question proposed an "I do not understand" button. One of its answers proposes a "This audit is incorrect" button, the answer has a +100 bonus. See Review audits and "I understand" button

Another question is similar to mine. It has some discussion in the comments, but no answer. See What is the best way to dispute review audits

Are per question statistics collected on review audits? If a question is used in an audit and most people pass then that may be a good question for the review. However if many people fail an audit with that question then perhaps that question should be examined by the moderators.

  • 6
  • 7
    That particular question is actually capable of a fairly objective answer, so probably shouldn't be closed as primarily opinion-based. It's not a good audit question because you have to know Haskell well enough to know that though. – Ganesh Sittampalam Jul 3 '14 at 16:22
  • 4
    @GaneshSittampalam: There is always the "skip" option if you don't understand the post in question, otherwise I would be closing half of my review queue as "unclear what you are asking" ^^ – PlasmaHH Jul 3 '14 at 16:57
  • 1
    But what if you do understand the question and fail a review audit (incorrectly). How do you dispute it? – ouflak Jul 3 '14 at 17:00
  • 1
    See meta.stackexchange.com/questions/188780/… – Nit Jul 3 '14 at 17:00
  • 4
    "I understand" does not mean "I agree". – Yakk - Adam Nevraumont Jul 3 '14 at 17:32
  • 2
    @PlasmaHH agreed. Knowing when to press the skip button is half the secret not to flunking your way into the penalty box. – Dan Neely Jul 3 '14 at 20:04
  • 1
    @Yakk, But I don't 'understand' the system's failed logic. If I could have a look at the code, do some debugging, track down the obvious errors, THEN 'I understand'. Otherwise all I can say, when it screws up, is that their audit algorithm is broken. – ouflak Jul 4 '14 at 7:15
  • FWIW, I've failed an audit for the opposite situation: the question had been flagged as "unclear what you're asking," but I understood immediately what the poster was asking. It was a bad question that I would have downvoted, but I understood the question, and to my knowledge, none of the other close reasons applied. – Andrew Jan 2 '15 at 1:40
  • @humble.rumble renaming the button is a reasonable suggestion. But, I think your suggest rewriting may be wrong. Items get added to the review queues before the community has voted on their suitability for review. There are too many robo-reviewers who approve everything without doing any analysis; these items can lead to review failures. – AdrianHHH Jun 12 '15 at 9:42
  • @humble.rumble if you are proposing an answer to this question then it may be better to write it as an answer. Then the whole community will be able to contemplate your ideas. – AdrianHHH Jun 13 '15 at 7:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .