Return to Answer

This would be a great idea, if the review audit algorithm actually worked.

I posted a very clear example here of why it doesn't, and there was a very similar post made by another user that same day. If the review audits can fail that badly when selecting a question for the audit, it would be too easy for the "suspicion level" to be invalidly increased. I failed my first two review audits ever within a five minute span; the first I questioned (but decided not to follow up on and accept as my mistake), the second was a 100% wrong failure of the audit review itself (and the reason for the post I linked above).

The two review audit failures within 5 minutes certainly would have elevated my "suspicion level" quickly, even though the first IMO was a very questionable failure, and the second was so apparently unreasonable that I asked others to explain it by posting here at Meta. There's no real appeal from an invalid failure, though; I don't think either (or both) of the invalid failures were removed from my history, so I still show that I failed two review audits.

(After an extended discussion in the comments below)

My concern isn't about being banned from reviewing. I review here voluntarily, not because I get anything for doing so, the same way I answer questions.

Having to pass more tests after failing tests that were invalid in the first place is an irritant. My reaction to having failed two invalid audits in a short time span (5 minutes) is "Screw this. I'm not wasting any more time with this (expletive) now." Is that really what we want here?

This would be a great idea, if the review audit algorithm actually worked.

I posted a very clear example here of why it doesn't, and there was a very similar post made by another user that same day. If the review audits can fail that badly when selecting a question for the audit, it would be too easy for the "suspicion level" to be invalidly increased. I failed my first two review audits ever within a five minute span; the first I questioned (but decided not to follow up on and accept as my mistake), the second was a 100% wrong failure of the audit review itself (and the reason for the post I linked above).

The two review audit failures within 5 minutes certainly would have elevated my "suspicion level" quickly, even though the first IMO was a very questionable failure, and the second was so apparently unreasonable that I asked others to explain it by posting here at Meta. There's no real appeal from an invalid failure, though; I don't think either (or both) of the invalid failures were removed from my history, so I still show that I failed two review audits.

(After an extended discussion in the comments below)

My concern isn't about being banned from reviewing. I review here voluntarily, not because I get anything for doing so, the same way I answer questions.

Having to pass more tests after failing tests that were invalid in the first place is an irritant. My reaction to having failed two invalid audits in a short time span (5 minutes) is "Screw this. I'm not wasting any more time with this (expletive) now." Is that really what we want here?

This would be a great idea, if the review audit algorithm actually worked.

I posted a very clear example here of why it doesn't, and there was a very similar post made by another user that same day. If the review audits can fail that badly when selecting a question for the audit, it would be too easy for the "suspicion level" to be invalidly increased. I failed my first two review audits ever within a five minute span; the first I questioned (but decided not to follow up on and accept as my mistake), the second was a 100% wrong failure of the audit review itself (and the reason for the post I linked above).

The two review audit failures within 5 minutes certainly would have elevated my "suspicion level" quickly, even though the first IMO was a very questionable failure, and the second was so apparently unreasonable that I asked others to explain it by posting here at Meta. There's no real appeal from an invalid failure, though; I don't think either (or both) of the invalid failures were removed from my history, so I still show that I failed two review audits.

(After an extended discussion in the comments below)

My concern isn't about being banned from reviewing. I review here voluntarily, not because I get anything for doing so, the same way I answer questions.

Having to pass more tests after failing tests that were invalid in the first place is an irritant. My reaction to having failed two invalid audits in a short time span (5 minutes) is "Screw this. I'm not wasting any more time with this (expletive) now." Is that really what we want here?

This would be a great idea, if the review audit algorithm actually worked.

I posted a very clear example here of why it doesn't, and there was a very similar post made by another user that same day. If the review audits can fail that badly when selecting a question for the audit, it would be too easy for the "suspicion level" to be invalidly increased. I failed my first two review audits ever within a five minute span; the first I questioned (but decided not to follow up on and accept as my mistake), the second was a 100% wrong failure of the audit review itself (and the reason for the post I linked above).

The two review audit failures within 5 minutes certainly would have elevated my "suspicion level" quickly, even though the first IMO was a very questionable failure, and the second was so apparently unreasonable that I asked others to explain it by posting here at Meta. There's no real appeal from an invalid failure, though; I don't think either (or both) of the invalid failures were removed from my history, so I still show that I failed two review audits.

(After an extended discussion in the comments below)

My concern isn't about being banned from reviewing. I review here voluntarily, not because I get anything for doing so, the same way I answer questions.

Having to pass more tests after failing tests that were invalid in the first place is an irritant. My reaction to having failed two invalid audits in a short time span (5 minutes) is "Screw this. I'm not wasting any more time with this (expletive) now." Is that really what we want here?

This would be a great idea, if the review audit algorithm actually worked.

I posted a very clear example here of why it doesn't, and there was a very similar post made by another user that same day. If the review audits can fail that badly when selecting a question for the audit, it would be too easy for the "suspicion level" to be invalidly increased. I failed my first two review audits ever within a five minute span; the first I questioned (but decided not to follow up on and accept as my mistake), the second was a 100% wrong failure of the audit review itself (and the reason for the post I linked above).

The two review audit failures within 5 minutes certainly would have elevated my "suspicion level" quickly, even though the first IMO was a very questionable failure, and the second was so apparently unreasonable that I asked others to explain it by posting here at Meta. There's no real appeal from an invalid failure, though; I don't think either (or both) of the invalid failures were removed from my history, so I still show that I failed two review audits.

(After an extended discussion in the comments below)

I might be more agreeable to your suggestion if there were in fact a way to appeal invalid audit failures, but any automated "suspicion level" when there are so many complaints about the validity of audit reviews here just seems wrong. It also seems that mods would be adversely affected, as people would not review as many questions because they could be flagged as "suspicious reviewers" and have no way to appeal. Unless the selection of review questions is improved, or a process of having invalid review failures is in place, any automated "bad guy level" is inappropriate IMO.

Both of the audit failures I had were invalid. The first one I thought about asking here about, and decided not to do so; after all, it was only a single failure, and it was the only one I'd ever had. OK. I'll let it slide. The next one, so soon after and that I really couldn't make sense of, I questioned here. I really wish now I'd asked about the first one just for the documentary trail it would have left for this discussion.

My concern isn't about being banned from reviewing. I review here voluntarily, not because I get anything for doing so, the same way I answer questions.

Having to pass more tests after failing tests that were invalid in the first place is an irritant. My reaction to having failed two invalid audits in a short time span (5 minutes) is "Screw this. I'm not wasting any more time with this (expletive) now." Is that really what we want here?

This would be a great idea, if the review audit algorithm actually worked.

I posted a very clear example here of why it doesn't, and there was a very similar post made by another user that same day. If the review audits can fail that badly when selecting a question for the audit, it would be too easy for the "suspicion level" to be invalidly increased. I failed my first two review audits ever within a five minute span; the first I questioned (but decided not to follow up on and accept as my mistake), the second was a 100% wrong failure of the audit review itself (and the reason for the post I linked above).

The two review audit failures within 5 minutes certainly would have elevated my "suspicion level" quickly, even though the first IMO was a very questionable failure, and the second was so apparently unreasonable that I asked others to explain it by posting here at Meta. There's no real appeal from an invalid failure, though; I don't think either (or both) of the invalid failures were removed from my history, so I still show that I failed two review audits.

(After an extended discussion in the comments below)

My concern isn't about being banned from reviewing. I review here voluntarily, not because I get anything for doing so, the same way I answer questions.

Having to pass more tests after failing tests that were invalid in the first place is an irritant. My reaction to having failed two invalid audits in a short time span (5 minutes) is "Screw this. I'm not wasting any more time with this (expletive) now." Is that really what we want here?