Tag Info

Questions can be pushed into the Reopen Votes queue either by an edit or a reopen vote. As you said, the only revisions were made by you after you saw the review item, so that couldn't have created the task. I see only one reopen vote on the question now, which I suspect is yours, again cast after you saw the item. Therefore, the question must have only been ...

Is this a random process and I've been unlucky or have I been singled out for some reason? Have I been a bad reviewer (gasp)? The review honeypot posts are inserted automatically, and I'm fairly sure it's a random process. We do not single out users and put them to the test. If we observe unusual reviewing behavior, we'd rather check that manually and ...

If you're thinking about when the question was asked, then you're already thinking about that post more than the typical review robot we're trying to catch does. The post is not an obvious audit if you just mash the "No action needed" button. But I agree that the small number of review items at any given time will make people realize that audits are coming....

You couldn't have known. This was a fake question acting as a bait for spam answers. It looks like you were supposed to review the answer, which was deleted as spam by a moderator. These spammers are getting more clever now. They post real questions and wait a few days before providing an answer with a different account. The question itself looks innocent ...

There are couple of feature requests on Meta Stack Exchange Automatically remove audits failed often Bring a "human factor" into review audit composition/selection There haven't been any official response to these. There was also a call to review for audits - Request for review: close/reopen "known good" audits This has been locked ...

It's more or less the same information provided in the other answer to that question... Except without screenshots... And with that spam link. It's the spam link that you should be worried about. It's become rather commonplace for folks wishing to advertise their sites to come here and drop links all over the place, sometimes along with real answers but ...

As has already been mentioned several times in all the "failed audit" meta questions mods have no say in what questions go into audits. Technically though, that is an actual valid workable answer to the question. That there are other and better answers is irrelevant. It sounds ludicrous, and it probably was meant as a joke but it is a solution that would ...

since I don't have the required knowledge to understand whether it was a correct or incorrect answer, I reviewed the post as "No action needed", since it did look like an answee There's this handy button called "skip". use it if you don't know well enough whether it's a correct/incorrect answer. Don't review as "No action needed".

Sorry about that; this was completely broken for a few days, but it should be all good now.

This is actually driven by the spam detection system, where posts or edits from untrusted networks can trigger the alert to help folks recognize the need to be extra-vigilant: The review system suggested something was probably spam, what should I do when I see this? This is also used on audits, primarily so that you don't get too confident in the system's ...

I think there needs to be another type of review, one that reviews the posts chosen for audits. Seems like this type of situation happens often enough where people trying to review are getting failures on faulty logic. My experience was this https://superuser.com/review/first-posts/336393 I had tried to post a comment on the answer to ask the user to ...

I'd guess the pass action on this would be an upvote or No Action Needed review. Exactly. Your first thought would, preferably, been to upvote the high quality and helpful content. Comments should primarily be used to indicate problems with the answer. This answer did not really need any more commentary and I suspect, but have not checked, that this ...

The comments on this were indeed a red herring, if it weren't for them you'd probably be wondering how or why the question was ever closed in the first place, and voted to reopen it. The selection isn't random, the system tries very hard to give you an extremely obvious selection of what it thinks are extremely good questions that almost everyone would take ...

I disagree. The specific audit you referenced is laughably wrong. If you had even looked at the suggested edit, you wouldn't have been compelled to hit "Improve", but instead, "Reject". Thank mfm filmmaker you mfm filmmaker? Seriously? And you wanted to improve this edit, when the thing the edit was doing was not only hilarious, but completely the ...

Let's start with the obvious - you will be banned from review audits if you get too many - here's the official SE staffer post on the subject - it says the ban is up to a week, and the comments to this question state this is a temporary ban of up to 30 days. On the other hand, review audits aren't designed to punish people with good intentions - they're ...

If you only fail once in a while, that's not a problem. Some of the audits are really hard to identify as such (or correctly pass, for that matter), because they're based off individual decisions, not necessarily agreed-upon policy. If you fail too many – and nobody really knows that number – you will be temporarily banned from reviewing only. No other ...

Either this is new or I overlooked it yesterday: So, all the details I was looking for were already available. There is no reason to click 'Close' unless you intend to close the question.

There is no way to see your own review audit history, although you can see your review history from your user profile under activity > reviews. Moderators can see whether a specific user is currently banned from reviewing or not, and can see recently passed and failed review audits. Review audit history is only available for the past 30 days though and ...

Don't worry about one or two failed audits. As previous questions and answers have stated, they worked on you - You took a moment to check that the post is actually OK. You're not a robo-reviewer just accepting every post that comes though.

I then added a comment recommending they search for previous questions and gave them a link to the duplicate question and answers. You should have flagged as a duplicate instead of commenting they should search for something. Since the audit changed the name of the user, there was no way for me to know otherwise. You could have clicked to view the ...

As outlined in the FAQ the criteria for "bad" Close/Reopen audits are questions which are quickly closed with no answers. AFAIK downvotes also play a role. This particular question was downvoted and closed within minutes, and then the bot had almost two days to pick it up, before it got reopened. Edit: I felt this was something worth a discussion on meta.SE....

You picked "No Action Needed" on a post where at least an edit would have been the action required. It's not fine as-is, as the entire first sentence should have been at least edited out. That is the second least that would be expected. It's not clear either through all the introduction that it's something other than a comment. Downvote would have been a ...

It happens from time to time… and it's hard to tune this review system to deal with such cases (e.g. a highly upvoted answer that would've otherwise been auto-flagged as low quality). Instead of flagging it, I would have probably tried to edit some more relevant information into the post. But as you can see there's not a lot to add there either, because ...

These audits, and tests for humans actually reviewing and observing all aspects of the reviewed items, are done by code (a machine, a program) There is no human analising your responce to them, it is therefore fallable. It still accomplishes the job of keeping humans on thier toes, and not blind acceptance. If you failed to provide the correct responce ...

The post you refer to was flagged and removed as spam 6 days ago, and I believe it was shown as part of review audit.

It's supposed to be random - an actual user picked from among recently-registered users who've suggested edits. You've only had two audits, so I'm pretty comfortable saying this is just bad luck - you could just have easily run into the same username while reviewing actual edits. We'll probably try to make this sort of luck a bit less likely in the future ...

Multiple discussions concerning comments on review audits have been raised on MSO, I believe this particular one as well but I can't seem to locate it. Basically, it's not a huge concern. As slhck pointed out in comments, the fact that you actually read the post means we got the action that we were hoping for out of you. These are designed primarily to ...

It is certainly best practice. There have been many occasions when I've reviewed, particularly Late Answers, where the post merely duplicates an existing answer. Sometimes an answer from a new user is a comment on an existing answer but doesn't directly reference that answer. By making checks like this you can add better, more detailed comments as ...

Ramhound's answer is very thorough. I'd like to clarify his answer to "Why shouldn't I have downvoted?" There is no reason to not downvote a technically incorrect answer. In my opinion, therefore, you did the right thing. Downvoting wrong information is good inside and outside review queues, even if it was posted before a similar, correct one. (Though, if ...

This answer is not correct (as observed by one person who commented). So the author of the answer should be pinged so they can fix the answer. Why shouldn't I have downvoted? 54 random people found the answer to be helpful. It was the only answer for a period of time. While I personally agree that it is incomplete, the author clearly wrote the answer, ...