10

I just got a review audit fail on a re-open review on the following link:

https://stackoverflow.com/review/reopen/1427142

I viewed the question as being far too open ended, and basically to be a request for code, with no real attempt to solve the problem themselves.

The audit fail message said there was nothing wrong with the question.

Was I being overly harsh?

Improve this question
5
  • 3
    Any question with an image like that needs to be reopened. But disregarding the image for now, I agree, I wouldn't have voted to reopen it either.
    – Bart
    Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 11:16
  • 1
    audit failure message should explain that Skip is valid option too, that reviewer isn't limited to only press reopen. Quite a pity this isn't shown. I for one would pass review by skipping - because I know nothing about question topic to make a substantial judgement
    – gnat
    Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 14:47
  • 2
    I ran into a similar "trap" yesterday. The system seems to believe that a question with 5-6 upvotes should obviously be reopened if it had been closed. I miss an "I disagree" button on the honeypots.
    – Bo Persson
    Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 17:18
  • I came to search meta on this topic after running into the 4th "audit failure" that I disagree with. Probably an automated system that has its flaws.
    – Eric J.
    Commented Feb 5, 2013 at 2:26
  • @EricJ. Agreed - don't think its perfect yet. Maybe they need to use questions with a number of up votes rather than just questions that aren't closed yet or something.
    – Jon Egerton
    Commented Feb 5, 2013 at 8:40

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
10

Looks like the basis for the system saying there is nothing wrong with the question is that the question was not closed to begin with; I think It's taking still-open questions as the honeypots, on the assumption that if they aren't closed, they must be OK (ish).

I agree with you about that question, and likely would have voted the same way... and failed too, I guess!

A failure here or there is not a problem, but I wonder how often this might happen.

Improve this answer
1
  • Depends on the "here or there" being applied to kick in the block from reviewing I guess - since there's no stats to view on your own review performance, I've no idea how many of these audits I pass.
    – Jon Egerton
    Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 11:19
4

No, you weren't being overly harsh. I would have voted to close this as not a real question or too localized.

The Re-open audits are kind of strange though. Unlike the others there's not always much obviously wrong with the post. However, a re-open vote is something that cannot necessarily be assessed in seconds. It's something that can take time.

With the newer changes there's a revision in another tab. Where this doesn't exist and there's no comments indicating why someone voted to re-open you should be looking for both the reasons why it was closed and a reason to re-open it. This normally means you go to the question page where it becomes immediately apparent that this question is already open.

There are certain clues that this is an audit as well. It's a recent post, with a fair few upvotes. If it were an older post it's likely to have been closed as not constructive if it's in the re-open queue and has upvotes. There's an audit "smell" about it.

Improve this answer
2
  • Your comments are noted - did think this instance was pretty clear cut as a NARQ though so didn't really think to look mush further.
    – Jon Egerton
    Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 11:23
  • I guess my main point @Jon is that no matter what it looks like if there are upvotes you should be wary of it being an audit and investigate it as if it were. Though I do agree with you I would have voted to close this question without hesitation (it just looks like iOS people disagree with me).
    – ben is uǝq backwards
    Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 13:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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