Some people are complaining about the automatically generated audits. They are based on close reasons and apparently are a little controversial :-)
- Failed low-quality review audit
- Reopen Question review audit fail clarification
- Failed a Reopen Question audit — sure looks like "Not a real question" to me
- Security Audit: First post, what was the proper reaction?
- Stupid audits (again)
- I disagree with that audit - low effort convert-that-for-me-question
- YARAFP: Yet Another Review Audit Failed Post
I propose that for "good reviewers" (definition TBD) an extra UI component be added to let the reviewer suggest this as an audit item. Possibly:
- Reject and add as audit button (Close and add as audit, etc)
- checkbox next to Reject, Close, etc
- checkbox on the Reject reason, Close reason etc dialog (could get messy, and some actions such as Reopen don't involve a subsequent dialog)
- dialog after rejecting, closing, Recommend Deletion, etc
Further, after passing or failing an audit, we could ask "good reviewers" "was this a good audit"? Bad audits, whether auto-generated or human suggested, could be removed from use if enough "good reviewers" identified them as such.
Now, what's a good reviewer? I don't want to judge only on behaviour in the review queue. I think flagging well is a good sign. So is editing - maybe an edit-related badge? And yes, some number of reviews would be good. Maybe some ratio of pass to fail on review audits. But not JUST what we do in the queues.
(I first suggested this in my answer to http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/159573/147247 but I'm bringing it up as a feature request of its own and to apply to all the queues.)