Incorrect audits [closed]

Question

Today, I failed an ^{_{(unfair and incorrect)}} audit, the first one in a while, and I'm now banned from reviewing for two days. I naturally find this unfair and stupid, and I would really like to get the edit priviledge back.

I'm repeatedly failing these audits it seems, last time I brought it up in the chat with @Shog9, and recently I have not come across a single one that has been fair or even useful as an audit at all in my eyes. The most recent one, and the one that banned me, was this. In my opinion, this is a legitimate answer, other than the fact that the user chose to say that he encountered the problem as well, but it does provide an answer. Might be a good one, might be a bad one, but that's irrelevant in my opinion, an answer is an answer, no matter how correct.

Audits are incredibly annoying, and I know I'm a good reviewer, but I still fail at some. Please consider doing something about it, as it is really annoying to get this feedback when reviewing something that's actually correct, and on top of it all resulting in being banned from contributing through reviewing for two days, which happened to me. It isn't exactly motivating me to keep caring about reviewing.

Edit: It doesn't seem like anything has happened about this, I have complained again, and asked for clarification on how the audit system really works. Since this post, I have been quarantined/banned from reviewing 2-3 more times, once having it lifted (thanks Shog9), the rest waiting it out. As previously mentioned, it isn't exactly motivating me to continue reviewing.

Answer 1

I'm the reason that answer was presented to you, because I'm the mod that processed the flags that collected on it indicating that it's not really an answer to the question.

I actually spent a bit of time on it, and almost edited it, but every edit I could think up left me with something that looked, at least to me like a comment at best. I did agree with the flags, but I generally favor improving terse answers that don't really meet our quality guidelines over just deleting them, if they can be saved.

So, when I elected to just delete it after a few minutes, it was because I felt like it was much more of a 'me too' comment left as an answer than an actual answer.

We have become rather strict with quality related flags for this very reason. When we validate them by taking a destructive action, we know there's a very good chance that they'll be used as a review audit. They need to be cut and dry, or at least darn close to it.

So, in this case, I think I probably made a mistake. I could have validated the flags (I did fully agree with them) and left the answer after at least a minor edit to improve it a bit, which would have kept it out of the audit. The fact that I deliberated for a few minutes means that it wasn't really cut and dry after all, and I will keep this experience in mind going forward (and, well, this is a good example of why we need to be extremely accurate). I'm a seasoned moderator with two years under my belt, if I had a hard time making heads or tails of it, I should have definitely made sure it didn't become an audit.

However, we are human, and we do make mistakes occasionally.

Answer 2

Once upon a time people complained a lot how crappy the new review system is with users abusing it by randomly voting/flagging/approving without paying attention. Thousands of letters have been written in Meta and many days passed.

Then came the review audits. Trivial, simple and easy to detect. The robo reviewers have been finally defeated, and many people were happy again.

Now I can't speak officially and don't have stats at my disposal but common sense tells me that those trivial audits were not enough. Many bad reviews still take place, by users who honestly think they are doing the right thing. So it's time for the audit system to grow up.

From system meant to filter out those who just review blindly and/or randomly just to gain some badges, it grew up to a system that educates the reviewers, teaching them what is a good review and what is a bad review.

In my opinion, it's a blessed and required change if we want the review process to be effective.

Last but not least, regrading the specific audit you linked to: personally I'm not familiar enough with the relevant area of expertise so would have skipped it, but either that answer was wrong (experts in that area should know) thus deserved a downvote or the answer better fit as comment, especially if it repeated something pretty obvious without giving any real help.

The new audits are not unfair, they are harder to detect as audits and look more like the real reviews that's all. Fine by me!

Answer 3

Failing an audit is no shame. But you need to learn from the experience.

My review process is continuously changing. Based on the change of the systems, the discussions on meta and an occasional failed audit. The later was a sign that my system was flawed and needed an update.

Right now, I only use the review screen if I'm completely sure. If in doubt, I check the post link to get additional information.

Answer 4

I disagree. If you don't know if it's a good answer or not, you should click "Skip". By clicking "No Action Needed", you get that review out of the review queue, and thus are not allowing other people who could know if it's a good answer or not to review it.

Of course, this only applies to this audit. Perhaps other audits are incorrect, but I think this one is fair.

Answer 5

I have to agree to an extent as it seems like some of the audits I have failed just appeared to be the result of the person not being able to speak proper English (which there is plenty of that on these sites). I wish the substance of the audit would be more easily detectable (really obvious vandalizing) vs the way it is now where sometimes I am wondering if the edits are bad simply because of the language barrier.