While reviewing a post, I saw some random character input and I wanted to improve that post. That's why I clicked the "Improve" button to edit the post and bang.... The message said that I can't review for 2 days. I should have rejected the edit.

Are there any ill effects of this? I just wanted to remove those random characters. The "Improve" button confused me a little.

  • 3
    Nah. You just can't review for another two days. That was a test. When you see something like that, don't improve. Just flag it as vandalism or something similar.
    – Bart
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 9:17
  • It only means you've failed a couple of audits. Just have a good look at them to understand why. And perhaps go through some of your reviews to see how others voted and how you can perform better reviews. Then, once you can review again, your reviews will improve. Good luck.
    – Bart
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 9:23

1 Answer 1


This is a bit of a corner case, as the only audits you seem to fail are when you do exactly what you just did, yet the edits you suggest improvements upon would have improved the post (and the edit).

You didn't do anything wrong, you just didn't do what the system was expecting you to do, which was reject the edit. The system expects you to do what several others did with the same edit.

I've lifted the two day review block, and there's no lasting consequences to this. It looks like you get zapped with this when you make heroic attempts to salvage fundamentally bad or extremely trivial edits. If improving the edit means completely re-doing everything the edit was going to do, just pop the post open in a new tab, reject the edit in the queue and suggest a new sane or more substantial edit.

You can do this right from review if you want, but be aware that bad edits are food for audits and audits have no way of knowing if you actually did improve an edit. Therefore, making 'improve' pass the audit would drastically lower their effectiveness in that queue.

These are designed to be flypaper for those that simply do not pay attention to what they're doing, they just want some badges. You're actively thinking, engaged and interested in what you're doing, so you don't have to worry too much about it. Just keep the above in mind and you should be fine.

  • 1
    "Therefore, making 'improve' pass the audit would drastically lower their effectiveness in that queue." As I understand it, the purpose of audits is to catch robo-reviewers. It seems unlikely that robo-reviewers will be clicking to improve suggested edits. I get that the system can't assess whether the improvement was actually an improvement, but if you made some substantial changes, it seems like the audit should be counted as passed. Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 10:43
  • @CodyGray the more I think about it, "the more it looks like it is worth investing effort into coding tests that fail at the moment of unambiguously proven failure. It is a honorable goal to teach people subtle intricacies of moderation, but so far it looks like getting audits there does more harm than good..."
    – gnat
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 10:47

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