I think many of us already aware, still I wanted to let you know that First Post and Late Answers review posts are generated on specific time interval.
When time comes for post generation I follow some tricks

  1. Click and till a Post appears for review
  2. Then right-click and select Open in new tab 5-8 time.
  3. Then in every page follow the below steps
    • Open the Question of post appeared in review in New tab
    • If Page/Question not exists then simply downvote since post was deleted because of -ve response.
    • Else if page exists then
    • Check the review post's Net Reputation
    • If reputation is -ve then simply downvote the post came in review
    • Else one may select No Action needed.

This way if in any case a post comes for "Are you paying attention" can be handled easily.

I think if a post comes in review should not allow to view post.

  • 8
    I disagree. Viewing the post gives more context, which is often necessary if you want to do a proper review, and not just avoid the tests – user000001 Aug 23 '13 at 14:22
  • 12
    So I'm curious, why do you want to do your reviews like this? Yes, you can get through reviews a tad bit faster, but even so you're still wasting a lot of your time harming the site, just to make a little review count go up a bit. Why not just spend a little bit of time to actually review the posts and help people instead. If you don't have enough time to do that, then just don't review at all. It's not like you're paid per review or anything. – Servy Aug 23 '13 at 14:24
  • 3
    -1 if for no other reason than "I think if a post comes in review should not allow to view post." – John Dibling Aug 23 '13 at 16:39

Being able to view a post can be absolutely essential in a review. The view presented to us only gives us a partial view of what's going on. Keep in mind that the audits are primarily meant to weed out the worst of the robo reviewers. I, on occasion, like to dig down a bit further to not take a decision I might later regret, because I did not get the full picture.

Trying to prevent circumvention of the audits by not allowing me as a decent reviewer (or so I hope) to have a full view of the post, is by no means an improvement.


Your question's title:

Easy to bypass “Are You paying Attention” test by viewing question in detail

That is pretty much exactly the point here. You are actually looking at the post, and taking a couple seconds to make some quick judgments.

I'd say that's pretty much exactly working as intended.

I should add more, as I've probably not really addressed your question that well above;

While the method you describe does seem a bit 'exploit-like', you are still far from doing robo-reviews, which is the biggest reason for the audits. There are other little quirks that can be exploited to find these, too. The situation is not perfect, definitely, but it does a moderately good job of finding those who are really just breezing through without thinking at all.

  • 1
    I'd hope that most reviewers consider "viewing the question in detail" to involve looking at more than whether or not the page 404s. What the OP means by the quoted phrase is opening the actual question link up, rather than viewing the question through the review queue. – Servy Aug 23 '13 at 15:46
  • @Servy Yup; you are definitely right there. Mostly, I thought the title was rather... odd... for this issue being suggested. And to be honest, the OP is certainly doing much more than anyone remotely close to a robo-reviewer does. That said, I might want to clarify things some here. – Andrew Barber Aug 23 '13 at 15:58
  • So you consider someone that chooses "no action needed" for every single review that isn't an audit to be not a robo reviewer? I thought that that was pretty much the definition of a robo reviewer. It's just that this one is using a means of determining if the post is an audit or not without actually reviewing the content. If he did this, and then proceeded to actually decide what to do based on the merits of the post, when it's not an audit, then that wouldn't be so bad. – Servy Aug 23 '13 at 16:02
  • 2
    @Servy Yes, I do think I would consider them to be a robo-reviewer, actually. I think perhaps my statement that it works 'exactly as intended' is probably a bad choice of wording there. Hmmm... I think this answer is starting to become a bit difficult to salvage! hehe – Andrew Barber Aug 23 '13 at 16:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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