Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

When getting audited in the review queues, it's often extremely obvious. If the date that a question or answer was posted is more than 20-25 minutes ago it's not going to be a new First Post or Late Answer.

This enables the wily user to be extra careful when reviewing these posts and pass audits easily.

For instance, this is obviously a real review:

Not Fake

This one is a fake:

Fake

Removing the time/user card completely would almost completely stop people being able to dodge audits. They'd have to click on every question and open it in a new tab, which would be unbelievably tedious; surely no one will do that 1,000 times?

I added the user card as an option because it might be easier, and the reputation of the poster shouldn't really be a factor in the outcome of a review.

share|improve this question
    
They'd have to click on every question and open it in a new tab, which would be unbelievably tedious; surely no one will do that 1,000 times -- not really, they can just downvote the question/answer, and if it's a honeypot, they win and move on. – LittleBobbyTables Jan 28 '13 at 20:04
    
Downvoting answers costs rep so that makes it less likely @LittleBobbyTables. There are also positive honey-pots in Low Quality. Mix and match them and anyone who downvotes the whole time gets caught as well. – ben is uǝq backwards Jan 28 '13 at 20:06
    
Sorry, I meant click "Downvote", then click "Downvote" again... it's an easy way to bypass negative honeypots, and you don't lose any rep in the process. I hadn't seen any positive honeypots yet though... interesting. Anyways, +1 for helping make reviews less gameable – LittleBobbyTables Jan 28 '13 at 20:08
2  
I'm going to argue that anyone that's paying enough attention to the user cards is also paying attention to the content of the posts. I doubt that type of user would be rubber-stamping. – Charles Jan 28 '13 at 20:14
1  
@LittleBobbyTables Shog has queried for that behavior in the past and review banned users doing that. There's not automated process in place to prevent it, but it's so easy to detect it's not a major concern. – Servy Jan 28 '13 at 20:27
    
@Charles, don't tell me you've suddenly gained some faith in human nature; you're going to destroy my own faith... – ben is uǝq backwards Jan 28 '13 at 20:35
    
@benisuǝqbackwards, the fact that there are occasionally competent people in the review queue has not touched my complete and total lack of faith in humanity. – Charles Jan 28 '13 at 20:39
    
They'd have to click on every question and open it in a new tab, which would be unbelievably tedious: This is not a great idea. This disrupts the review workflow for legitimate reviewers. The interface is designed to provide most of the information necessary to review the post with a reasonable level of certainty. The link is only there if further assessment is necessary; expecting users to do this with every post is inconsistent with the design of the review system. – bwDraco Oct 2 '15 at 12:50
    
the reputation of the poster shouldn't really be a factor in the outcome of a review: I'm not sure if I'd agree with this. Reviewing posts accurately requires context beyond the content of the post. The user's reputation and the presence of other answers are relevant context. For example, a post containing a link to a spam site by a new or deleted user likely needs to be flagged. However, a similar post from an established user requires more care as the user is less likely to be acting in bad faith. In such cases, It may be better to leave a comment or edit the post rather than to flag it. – bwDraco Oct 2 '15 at 12:58

It seems like a fake review could use a fake time/user card. Let's just adjust that for the test cases.

share|improve this answer
    
That'd work too. – ben is uǝq backwards Jan 28 '13 at 20:05
    
I'm not sure if this is a good idea. This strips the post of its context, which can make it difficult to accurately assess the post without having to click through to view the actual post (dramatically slowing down the review workflow). In some cases, this can actually make audits more readily apparent. It actually makes the job a bit harder for us legitimate reviewers. – bwDraco Oct 2 '15 at 12:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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