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

Why don't we show the "Reject" or "Recommend Deletion" dialogs on the audit questions? This allows people to cheat the system by just clicking "Reject" (or "Recommend Deletion") and if the box pops up, actually review it.

I'm proposing we show the dialog, and allow them to actually choose something, but just discard their choice and mark them as passed. We show it for the Suggested Edits, so why can't we do it for the others?

EDIT: By dialog, I mean the reason dialog, not the audit message.

share|improve this question
Huh? It's always made me select a reason in the Reject dialog for suggested edit review audits... Unless they recently changed it? – animuson Mar 6 '13 at 19:06
I just did a review and clicked "Recommend Deletion" and it took me to the next queue item instantly. – Cole Johnson Mar 6 '13 at 19:07
Maybe it's if you have passed enough audits, it starts to do this? – Cole Johnson Mar 6 '13 at 19:08
This happens in the first post audits as well. In fact, I just did one about 30 seconds ago, and you don't have to select a reason clicking flag. As soon as you click flag, you've passed the audit. That would make it a bit easy don't you think? You could just press flag, or in this case reject button on everything you're not sure about and pass every time. – Bernie Mar 6 '13 at 19:13
You don't get the congratulations dialog anytime. But a lot of the audits are more or less obvious so I often spot them. And you can check it in the history. – Toon Krijthe Mar 6 '13 at 19:30
up vote 1 down vote accepted

The suggested edits queue already requires a reason when rejecting (I usually choose vandalism, or custom: this was an audit).

The purpose of the audit is to detect reviewers with bad criteria (and robo-reviewers... but I think that is not the primary goal) as Shog9♦ commented in Using the "flag" loophole to pass every review audit

The basic assumption is that most reviewers want to help, but some of them are just... really bad at it. There's also the danger of fatigue causing mistakes. Actively malicious reviewers are another story entirely.

Then, if you read the post and decided that it should be rejected, you have already passed the audit, and you don't need to waste time deciding why it has to be rejected (which may take some time in case of posts that could apply to several options)

I'm not sure if there are audits for "false negative" rejects (i.e audits where the expected action is accepting). There is a comment in the question I linked saying that only the close queue has them, but I don't remember any.

BTW, I think that the current system is good for those trying to do a good job when reviewing. When I fail an audit (and I must confess, it happens more frequently than I would desire) I understand that as a signal for taking some break before more reviewing.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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