I came across a post, analyzed its content, and subsequently answered, drawing from my own experience of encountering a similar issue in the past.

In an effort to provide a comprehensive answer rooted in addressing the underlying cause, I searched SU meta's search, attempting to locate an established canonical response that succinctly addresses such inquiries in which I was unsuccessful.

The essence of the matter

The existing review queue audit is flawed and requires updating; fortunately, encountering failures is generally manageable, and proactive strategies exist to identify and address flaws effectively.

I'm seeking a thorough and canonical response that covers these aspects as well as any additional considerations contributors may suggest. This response will serve as a reference for all related inquiries, streamlining discussions about questions like "I answered review questions honestly and failed audit; should X really be Y?" so that we can avoid revisiting the same issues repeatedly.

Related Posts

Note: I've posted relevant questions, as have numerous others, and even "current" moderators have historically raised similar issues here. Below are some examples with links for reference.

  • Every community shares the same system, as a community we are at the whim, of the Stack Exchange developers. For that reason this question probably should be migrated to Meta Stack Exchange.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Dec 11, 2023 at 4:14
  • 1
    @Ramhound Although this appears to be a widespread problem impacting all Stack Exchange communities, I have observed it frequently on the Super User Meta. Consequently, I believe it would be fitting to have a comprehensive answer with all the necessary caveats documented on the Super User Meta. While we may not have control over the adjustments made by Stack Exchange developers, we can take the initiative to ensure that our community has a thorough post on the Super User Meta. Commented Dec 11, 2023 at 18:28
  • 2
    SU is perhaps more vulnerable to this, because the best answer is not always as clear as for example in SE. Personally, I've given up on reviewing a long time ago, because I didn't always agree with the "right" answer and was penalized as a result. It became too tiresome to check if a post was real or a test.
    – harrymc
    Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 20:34
  • Let's face it: the makers of StackExchange made a mistake with the reviews: it invites people to participate in reviewing, giving people the idea that they participate in something worldwide (which makes people feel important), but the review process is completely flawed and the StackExchange makers have bigger fish to fry. I believe the main problem here is: what can non-employees of StackExchange do in order to help improving the review process? (As employees of StackExchange seem not to have time for this)
    – Dominique
    Commented May 24 at 13:46

1 Answer 1


Harmful Content in Trick Audit Reviews: A Call to Action

Concerning the presence of any offensive content introduced by the audit system's algorithm in the trick audit review questions, if you encounter content containing profanity, racism, hate speech, discriminatory language, illegal activities, violence, explicit material, or any other forms of harmful content, please take appropriate action by disclosing it promptly.

Increased reporting, disclosure, and visibility increase the likelihood of those with the capability to implement impactful technical solutions taking notice.

Here are some reporting tips to maximize visibility and raise awareness:

  • Capture screenshots as evidence of the harmful content.
  • Note the relevant URL in the specific section where the system-generated harmful content appears.
  • Share your concerns by posting a question on the https://meta.stackexchange.com/ community.
  • Include supporting evidence for your content when making a post.
  • Remain resilient in the face of responses like:
    • "I've seen much worse"
    • "Not sure it's worth fixing"
    • "It's not a major issue"
    • "Why ask this"
    • "Voting to close"
  • Remain resilient in the face of lack of responses.
  • It's advisable to report every occurrence of observed harmful content as soon as it is noticed.

What about reposting harmful content

If you're hesitant about reposting a screenshot containing harmful content directly in the post, I recommend adding >! before [![Enter image description here][1]][1] in screen shots. This turns it into a screen shot that requires a click to reveal the content rather than displaying it by default. However, it's crucial to include the evidence in the post for awareness purposes.

Here's an example post using the strategy I used when I initially observed this issue. It illustrates how the approach functions, the nature of comments it elicits, and the absence of a direct answer in the format of an actual question.

enter image description here

  • If I must take on the role of the sole contributor, I will systematically analyze each element, delivering a thorough response to specific areas on a weekly or monthly basis until I've covered them all to my satisfaction. Given today's focus on offensive and harmful language/content generated by the system, I've addressed practical strategies at this level. Commented Dec 23, 2023 at 21:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .