It seems audit suggested edits are credited to real users1. For example, I was recently presented with two audits; coincidently, I rejected an apparently legit edit suggestion by the same user yesterday. That made me think, what if one of those nonsense edits were attributed to my user? At first, I thought I wouldn't like it ("how could such an atrocity be linked to my user?!"). But then I remembered such suggestions are clearly marked as audits, and thought it could be actually funny to have one of those credited to me.

What do you think? Would you like to be the "author" of poetry such as "I have an array of background images that sent and returned interlocked"?

(1) If that's not the case, please let me know, and I'll delete this question

  • Aren't close/reopen audits also "credited" to real users? – animuson Feb 21 '13 at 1:44
  • I don't know; actually, I never thought about that before noticing those suggested edits (which are funnier than audits from other queues). – bfavaretto Feb 21 '13 at 1:49
  • 10
    Obviously these should all be attributed to random. – user7116 Feb 21 '13 at 1:54
  • What exactly do you mean by "credited to you"? If the edit gets approved by a couple of votes, it gets credited to the one who suggested it; the audit votes themselves are "credited" to you of course. – Jack Feb 21 '13 at 2:17
  • @Jack the question is about bogus suggested edits created for audits, which are attributed to real users, even though they are not real edits. – psubsee2003 Feb 21 '13 at 2:19
  • @psubsee2003 Oh I see, those that are meant to keep auditors on their toes? :) – Jack Feb 21 '13 at 2:20
  • @Jack The "auditor" in this case is the system, auditing our job reviewing suggested edits. – bfavaretto Feb 21 '13 at 2:22
  • @Jack Right; I didn't realize what this was about until I saw psubsee's comment, either! – Andrew Barber Feb 21 '13 at 2:23
  • Time for some Fraley fraleyfacebooksettlement.com – random Feb 21 '13 at 2:24
  • @sixlettervariables But that's not random! – Doorknob Feb 21 '13 at 3:18
  • 1
    I for one would probably be proud to participate in fighting review-abuse - anything I can help, I'd give it, including attribution like this (consider this as an official volunteering confirmation) – gnat Feb 21 '13 at 8:29
  • 2
    Someone just got a mod message because of a review audit credited to them. This is a real problem. – mmyers Mar 7 '13 at 17:15
  • @mmyers Maybe you could point said user to this meta-discussion? My question was hypothetical, and having an actual case being discussed here would be nice. – bfavaretto Mar 7 '13 at 17:31
  • 1
    Meta post about the incident mmyers mentions: Stop using real accounts in suggested edit audits – Josh Caswell Mar 8 '13 at 18:14

Suggested edit audits are randomized, not just when presented to you at review, but when viewed by others later on. For example, the audits you link above are not attributed to user2086034 when I look at them now, but instead to Erwin van Ekeren and razor-sharp. Others looking at them tomorrow may see different users. Try looking at these again yourself and see if the authors and content have changed.

I don't believe there's any risk of long-term association with a particular audit example, unless you happened to take a screenshot of it.

  • True, now I'm seeing the same users you mentioned. Thanks for clarifying! – bfavaretto Feb 21 '13 at 16:00

I'm assuming that it also only attributes these fake edits to users who can still suggest them anyways (i.e. less than 2,000 reputation). I don't always pay attention to the user, but as far as I can recall they've all been attributed to very low-rep users whom are probably not even familiar with the review system or the fact that audits even exist.

That being said, those audits only show up in two places:

  • The history tab of the suggested edits review task, for users with 10,000 reputation

  • Your activity history under the reviews tab

The key thing here, they don't show up in that user's activity, and they're pretty well hidden from anyone who isn't explicitly searching through review histories looking for audits.

I do like this functionality for the actual audit. I think randomly generating names and "fake profiles" to assist suggested edits would be overly complicated and more noticeable that it's an audit.

However, that random name that was selected shouldn't remain on the audit after it has been completed. Once it's completed, the name should be removed, or the edit should be attributed to the Community user (or random), just so that people who do happen upon it... by chance... in the future... aren't completely confused. This would be similar to how the Low Quality Posts task shows you the actual current state of the post once you've completed an audit and look back on it, even though the screen you saw previously didn't look like that.


I guess the purpose of doing so is to prevent people auto-accepting. I've done it sometimes as well, where I notice that the suggester is user X and I just approve it without thoroughly reading the suggest. I don't do that anymore, but others may.

The only caveat here is that mods get confused by audits. If you see too many of these coming from the same user, you feel like mod messaging them (almost happened with another mod). I'm not sure what exactly happens when you get a review audit, but if the system isn't doing so already, it should always display the "Congrats, you passed" message if you pass an audit.

  • 2
    The system doesn't say "Congrats" on the suggested edits queue, it just takes you to the next post. You have to go back to check manually. Other queues do make it clear it was an audit after you pass, IIRC. – bfavaretto Feb 21 '13 at 14:33
  • @bfavaretto: Yep, then that should be a feature-request. – Manishearth Feb 21 '13 at 16:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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