5

I understand the point of audits, it helps to identify bad reviewers. I was going through reopen votes and failed this audit:

https://stackoverflow.com/review/reopen/2044743

It was obviously an audit, because I usually open the question in a separate tab to have a better overview, and I noticed the question was not closed, so it could not be in the 'Reopen Votes'. But if it was closed, I wouldn't vote to reopen it because I think it doesn't show enough effort considering it is a very basic question, too localized, and I am sure there are already duplicates of this question.

Should I always try to pass the audit, even if I don't think it makes sense? If I don't will I be penalized (more audits, ban from review, ...)?

  • 11
    "Why would I take time to read the question when it is obviously an audit?" And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how audits have failed. – BoltClock's a Unicorn May 3 '13 at 15:30
  • 2
    @BoltClock'saUnicorn yep, been like, "wait, posts this weird don't actually happen. Oh it's an audit." – djechlin May 3 '13 at 15:32
  • 2
    @BoltClock'saUnicorn Especially in categories that have low activity, such as 'reopen' or 'first-posts', I feel like i'm reviewing more audits than real questions, the whole process becomes a bit frustrating. Sometimes I see there is 1 new review in each low activity categories (first post, late answer, reopen, low quality), I already know there are audits. – Tchoupi May 3 '13 at 15:35
  • @Mathieu That's not a safe metric, since your assumption isn't true. – user206222 May 3 '13 at 15:51
  • @KnightswhosayNi Of course not, I am not saying I will blindly click the reopen button. I am just stating how I feel about audits. If I see such a coincidence I will check first for audits, then start reviewing the questions. Then again, I will not review blindly based on assumptions, but I will look for signs of audits first, and discard the review quickly if it is. – Tchoupi May 3 '13 at 15:58
  • @Mathieu Thus demonstrating that you're paying attention. – user206222 May 3 '13 at 16:00
  • @KnightswhosayNi Absolutely, and I had this discussion before. But in the specific case I mentioned, I failed, even though I was paying attention. So should I try to detect it's an audit first and answer accordingly to the audit (vote to reopen when I don't think it is true)? Or review it normally and fail, at the risk of being audited more often? – Tchoupi May 3 '13 at 16:12
  • @MathieuImbert I've lost the focus of what you're asking. Are you asking whether or not failing audits is okay, or whether or not we should change audit selection criteria? Can you clarify? – user206222 May 3 '13 at 17:42
  • @KnightswhosayNi My post was confusing. I removed side questions, and left only, the "should I always pass the audit" part. – Tchoupi May 3 '13 at 18:27
  • Ehm...of course you should pass audits. You might not be able to review any more at a point if you don't. If that is really your question, it's in essence a dupe of meta.stackexchange.com/questions/167962/… – Bart May 3 '13 at 18:28
  • @Bart In my example, I don't think the question should be reopened, which makes me fail the audit. – Tchoupi May 3 '13 at 18:41
  • Note that while the question you mention seems of low quality, and I wouldn't upvote it, it doesn't seem to meet any close criteria. It seems sufficiently general enough so as to not be "too localized". I'd at most downvote and move on without closing, perhaps commenting on how the OP can improve the question. – Servy May 3 '13 at 18:42
  • @Servy I agree, I might leave it opened, but I wouldn't cast a vote to reopen it if it was previously closed. – Tchoupi May 3 '13 at 18:44
  • 3
    @MathieuImbert You should vote how you think you should vote. If you then fail an audit and you really think there is something wrong, bring it up on Meta. Afaik, bans caused by wrong audits are one of the few bans that are sometimes lifted. And you might help improve the system. – Bart May 3 '13 at 18:49
7

If you happen to know that a post is an audit, you know what it wants you to say, and you also happen to know that what it wants you to say is wrong, then just skip it. I know I wouldn't knowingly vote to reopen a question that I feel should be closed just because that's what the audit is telling me to do. At the same time, if you vote for what you think should happen you'd fail the audit, and if you fail enough of them you will be banned from reviewing posts for a period of time.

0

If you feel strongly that the "correct" audit response is wrong, I think you should discuss that here on a case-by-case basis. Since it's an audit, failing it will have a (minor) negative effect on you without actually accomplishing anything, since your "vote" won't actually count; thus I think Servy is correct to say that you should skip it. In the case of spurious "reopen" audits using questions that you feel should actually be closed, you should also flag the original question for closure.

I don't know enough about the review audit system to know whether review audits are re-used or not, and its description here doesn't explicitly say one way or the other. But if it is the case that reviews are re-used, and you think that a review question is "wrong," then it's worth making a note of this because this will affect other reviewers.

Regarding the particular question you were reviewing this time, I agree that it is at least not what I'd consider a terrific example of something that should obviously not be closed.

You must log in to answer this question.

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