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

This question appears as an audit in reopen queue. I mean both, the question asks for a recommendation and the answer recommends [..].

This shouldn't be an audit in the first place - specially the reopen queue as I belive most of you would vote to leave this closed.

I voted to leave it closed and failed but I can't understand why...

Am I wrong or is this another case where a bad audit has been chosen by the system?

Just a quick update:

I have noticed a few downvotes on the question. Please do not punish the OP because you've been referred from here. It just feels wrong. I have made a small edit and I hope the votes will be reversed.

share|improve this question
Not the system fault. It got 5 upvotes and answer with 2 upvotes. As far as the system can tell, it's perfectly on topic and valid question. – Shadow Wizard Nov 28 '13 at 12:48
i have seen questions and answers with 100s of votes still off-topic – user221081 Nov 28 '13 at 12:49
True, but like I said code can't know that. I guess the close vote was cast after the question was taken as audit. If you get review banned due to this, I believe moderator can manually lift that ban. – Shadow Wizard Nov 28 '13 at 12:51
I don't entirely agree this is a recommendation question. Though the phrasing might make you think so. – Bart Nov 28 '13 at 12:51
@Bart Indeed, I think its an either-or question, which are often "primarily opinion based" – Richard Tingle Nov 28 '13 at 13:10
This answer on adding a "This audit is wrong button" might be worth supporting (the answer is a less crazy version of the question) – Richard Tingle Nov 28 '13 at 13:14
@ShaWizDowArd that's only when one feels that system designers have nothing to do with it. It's designers fault for letting algorithm fly loose without oversight, see: Bring a “human factor” into review audit composition/selection. If designed properly, "system" would be perfectly capable to tell whether it's on topic and valid – gnat Nov 28 '13 at 14:55
Yeah, it's the system's fault for thinking upvotes are always an indicator of a good question – Pëkka Nov 28 '13 at 16:31
up vote 16 down vote accepted

I wouldn't quite call that a recommendation question, but I can see how you'd make that assessment at first glance. It looks narrow enough and could be made more clear with a little editorial love.

As for the audit, as far as the system knew, this was a good example of a question that probably should not be closed. This is due to its overall reception. We can't say this enough:

Review audits are designed to catch robots that rubber stamp everything to get a badge.

You clearly were not doing that, and shouldn't worry about the occasional fluke, or just finding yourself at odds with actions that the community took. Failing a series of them is probably cause for concern, but the occasional audit doesn't matter much at all.

There's no way that we can identify contextual issues with a question being presented as an audit, not fully anyway. These are quite few and far between, please - just don't worry about it. The alternative is to decrease or not have audits, which creates a much bigger problem for us as far as quality goes.

There will be more of these, it's practically and technically unavoidable. If you were paying attention and voting after an informed decision - chalk it up to those wacky robots and just go to the next item.

share|improve this answer
You clearly were not doing that, and shouldn't worry about the occasional fluke, or just finding yourself at odds with actions that the community took. - glad you said it! – user221081 Nov 28 '13 at 13:16
Saying that it's ok to fail an audit now and then (and it definitely is, with close/reopen audits) is contradictory with the message you get when you fail, which states that you've been a bad person. – Gilles Nov 28 '13 at 13:29
@Gilles Softening that up if a person has a high accuracy percentage is on my list to do. Should probably be more along the lines of 'do you need a break? Would you like a Kit Kat?' or such. – Tim Post Nov 28 '13 at 13:36
@TimPost - That still puts all the blame on the person and implies that they must have made some sort of error without acknowledging that bad audits exist and it might be the audit at fault. – Martin Smith Nov 28 '13 at 13:53
@MartinSmith If a user has a .. say ... 85% or better accuracy in reviewing that particular queue, might just make sense to squelch it altogether. I'm going to bring it up in a meeting next week, this keeps coming up. The wording needs to change in certain instances, and probably just not be shown at all in others, but I don't want to pile on a ton of complexity. If you've got thoughts on wording, I'm all ears :) – Tim Post Nov 28 '13 at 14:00
@TimPost only offer kitkats if there is an option to accept one, which will actually result in the receipt of a kitkat, otherwise you are a bad person – Flyk Nov 28 '13 at 16:03

You must log in to answer this question.