Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 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

Today I stumbled upon this review, which looked perfectly reasonable to me, so I decided to end the review with "No action".

Turns out, this was a review audit and apparently this edit "was of very poor quality" and I should have edited it.

Can someone explain me what is wrong with this post? Aside from the fact that it may or may not be technically inaccurate, but that should really be out of the considerations when doing a review, right? To me the answer gives a clear answer to the question, the class names are similar so I don't really see anything wrong with it.

To expand the scope of my question, I've noticed recently a surge in unfair and sometimes plainly wrong review audits. I used to pass pretty much all the audits, but now it's more the other way around, and every time I can't find a really good reason for it. Also they seem to happen much ore frequently, I'm literally spending more time doing review audits than real reviews, and since their quality seems to have decreased over time it's not motivating for me and not beneficial for SO.

Has something changed in the review audit system? Or maybe this is by design so more people can have a chance at reviewing since some of the queues now drain almost instantly?

I don't know in details all the rules to pick audits, but it seems to me the rate of false positives has grown exponentially recently and is more hurting well-intentioned reviewers than it is helping SO.

share|improve this question
I just went through something similar. The audit system wants me to be a jerk. I'd prefer not to. – TurtlePowered Apr 14 '13 at 18:41
I had the same experience in SU. I saw a first-time post and decided to check the thread before deciding. I opened it in a new tab and realized that it was a comment/thank-you, and already deleted. Of course since it was already deleted, there was nothing more to do, so I naturally clicked [No Action Needed], and it nagged at me and told me I failed the audit. This was a bloody trap because there was no proper course of action. No option to edit or flag or delete or anything, only to skip (which makes no sense) or do nothing which is a fail! – Synetech Nov 29 '13 at 17:17

The audit used an already deleted answer. Some audits use deleted answers, which are taken to be not an answer.
That is the reason why you failed the audit by clicking on "No action": You were supposed to take the same, or similar action already taken by the other users.

This is similar with what done with suggested edits audits: The audits use already rejected suggested edits, and see if you reject them too. I once got a suggested edit that was changing too much of the original post; I didn't notice that, and I clicked on the "improve" button. Then, I was said it was an audit I failed, and that I should have paid more attention because the edit was changing too much in the post.

share|improve this answer
is there any chance that other users took the "wrong" action? and in doing so caused a faulty review audit to enter the system? does anyone perform any kind of quality control on the review audits or are they automatically chosen from previously rejected or deleted posts – user241462 Apr 14 '13 at 0:15
For suggested edits, it could be: When a suggested edit is rejected from 3 different users (on Stack Overflow), there is no way for the system to know if the rejection was correct. In the same way, the system cannot know if the answer was correctly deleted. It could be the audits choose specific posts. For example, it could take suggested edits that are rejected, and that changed too much of the original post; for deleted answers, it could choose the ones that were flagged as not an answer, and deleted X days ago. – kiamlaluno Apr 14 '13 at 0:21
The purpose of audits is making users stop, and think about what they did wrong. Doing so, they slow down the pace of review. – kiamlaluno Apr 14 '13 at 0:24
And what if you can’t take the same action? In my case, the post was a first-time-post and was already deleted, so the only options were to skip or do nothing. Skipping doesn’t make sense because I did examine it and make a decision, and it was already deleted, so doing nothing was the only rational choice, but it was a trap because doing nothing accused me of making a mistake. – Synetech Nov 29 '13 at 17:19
@Synetech You should look at what the audit shows, not anything else. This is probably a limit, since you could want to check the question page to better understand what you should do. If the audit is said to be failed because you look at the question page, that seems wrong, since you look at the question page because you are paying attention to what you do. The users who don't pay attention just click on the top buttons. – kiamlaluno Nov 30 '13 at 11:41
@kiamlaluno, I opened the question page in a different tab. I returned to the review page to handle it as usual, but there were only two options available and neither was useful because do-nothing was a trap and skip was inapplicable at that point. :-| – Synetech Nov 30 '13 at 14:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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