Is it possible to see a graph of views per day/hour on a question or some aggregate of questions?

I wonder what the typical distribution is...

@quid: To respond to your comment, my point was that I expect askers to show the same kind of courtesy here as they would in real life. Reading the guidelines is part of that courtesy, and so we aren't obliged to help the asker move stuff from their comments into their post. I do help askers do that if their question isn't the do-it-for-me kind, but in other cases we don't owe them anything.

So I don't disagree with your comment about the helpful note on an old exam.

I didn't mean to imply anything else other than my point about courtesy.

=)

@user21820 I agree with that but it's a bit orthogonal. Thanks for the clarification.

Sure!

Has it ever been considered to stage "audits" of the form some staged questions, e.g., a scanned image available in q question post, the image includes a cropped problem statement, along with, say to the right, "20 marks". The question might include the image, along with a plea: "Please help me asap! My answer is due tomorrow!". Then, any one who begins to answer, upon the submission of their answer, gets a bold-face: STOP!! You failed an answer review audit.

... "You chose to answer a question that is not up to par and does not meet the standards of this site. Please read the question carefully. Upon such an inspection, the correct response on a question like this is to (1) downvote, and/or (2) vote to close, or simply to walk away. Don't worry; the question has already been handled, so nothing ill will come from your mistake"

Then, of course, we'd need the obligatory "I understand box" which can be clicked only when the period of time needed to read the above message has passed.

@amWhy it's an interesting idea. It could be harder to implement than the other audits as it would interfere with the actual site. A further concern might be that it is harder to throttle the frequency with which audits are hit as one would not know which question somebody chooses to answer before they actual do.

@quid That's just the point of reviews in the review queue: one is not supposed to know (except for obvious suggested edits) what might be a review audit.) I think answerers need incentive not to merely answer anything sits in a question post, but check for at least some modicum of quality.

In a failed audit, one's answer will simply not be posted. For those who click to down-vote, or close vote, or even an attempt to edit, should get a "Congratualtions!" pop-up for paying attention and acting appropriately.

I'm not saying it wouldn't take some planning and a a lot of refinement, But we have tons of source super-poor questions with which to work (see deletion bin!). And I'm suggesting the worst of the worst questions as audit material, to minimize false fails.

Oh, also, STOP! messages would also pop up for upvotes of such an audit question, as well.

@amWhy yes, but I am worried that this is much harder to do for answers. In the queue the system decides which post is shown next, so it is relatively easy to insert an audit in semi-regular intervals. When answering questions it is the user that chooses the post. Thus there would have to be a relevant number of test posts on the main site. Maybe this could be done 'globally' in that the same test questions are shown for everybody for some time on main.

@quid Yes, I think 'globally' would have to be the approach.

I just want answerers to begin to pay attention to the quality of the posts, and risk a failed audit if they choose to answer the worst of the worst. I think any caution that instills will help, in general, on typical main site questions. To help answerers "get" that not every question should be answered, especially when there's no question, it cannot in any form be understood, in the worst of the worst...

@quid If you'd prefer to move this conversation to the math meta chatroom, I'm fine with that.

@amWhy I think it's fine here.

@quid Great!

@MartinSleziak I'm hoping you might have some helpful suggestions for searching meta.se about any previous posts seeking "audit-like" capacities on the main site, apart from the typical review audits. Read the last third or fourth of this page, if you've the time, and feel free to suggest anything that might be helpful.

@MartinSleziak I'm not asking you to do such searching; just any advice might help. Using "audit" in every search I've performed there has led to the prolific list of review audits, and a hit on a question about auditing one's vote count, or something other than addressing the positing of "pre-determined lowest of low quality questions" as an audit which would lead to negative, failed outcome for trying to answer or trying to upvote the question, yet positive outcomes ...

...for users who (1) downvote the question; and/or (2) vote to close the question, and perhaps even those who (3) try to edit the question.