I have to agree that this wasn't an appropriate review audit.

It's an old post that probably would get closed or downvoted if posted today.

Unfortunately, review audit selection is random and managed by SE employees who strongly prefer to use as much automation as possible to reduce "overhead" and human workload. Sadly, there are so many places where human intervention is required and we cannot totally cut out the human factor in such subjective things as reviews...

I have a feeling it would take a huge outcry from multiple full ♦moderators before they'll change it. See: Bring a "human factor" into review audit composition/selection

I have to agree that this wasn't an appropriate review audit.

It's an old post that probably would get closed or downvoted if posted today.

Unfortunately, review audit selection is random and managed by SE employees who strongly prefer to use as much automation as possible to reduce "overhead" and human workload. Sadly, there are so many places where human intervention is required and we cannot totally cut out the human factor in such subjective things as reviews...

I have a feeling it would take a huge outcry from multiple full ♦moderators before they'll change it. See: Bring a "human factor" into review audit composition/selection

I have to agree that this wasn't an appropriate review audit.

It's an old post that probably would get closed or downvoted if posted today.

Unfortunately, review audit selection is random and managed by SE employees who strongly prefer to use as much automation as possible to reduce human workload. Sadly, there are so many places where human intervention is required and we cannot totally cut out the human factor in such subjective things as reviews...

I have a feeling it would take a huge outcry from multiple full ♦moderators before they'll change it.

I have to agree that this wasn't an appropriate review audit.

It's an old post that probably would get closed or downvoted if posted today.

Unfortunately, review audit selection is random and managed by SE employees who strongly prefer to use as much automation as possible to reduce "overhead" and human workload. Sadly, there are so many places where human intervention is required and we cannot totally cut out the human factor in such subjective things as reviews...

I have a feeling it would take a huge outcry from multiple full ♦moderators before they'll change it. See: Bring a "human factor" into review audit composition/selection