I don't know if it's just me but it seems that when I review, it takes a bit longer to load an audit item as opposed to a real item needing reviewing. Since I noticed that, it's been like that in most cases and it's sort of giving away that it's an audit.

  • 5
    This has been mentioned before, but it isn't always audits. I've seen regular posts take a while too. Sep 27, 2013 at 11:34
  • 1
    That may be true. Still, it just makes me extra careful on those long loading ones...
    – Szymon
    Sep 27, 2013 at 11:37
  • +1, can reproduce consistently for suggested edits.
    – bwDraco
    Jul 13, 2015 at 5:44

1 Answer 1


Still, it just makes me extra careful on those long loading ones

If you need to take extra time and care over audit reviews then you're not spending enough time on real reviews.
If anything, arguably, the real reviews (not audit) warrant extra time as they're more important. As whatever action you choose on a real review has an affect on someone's answer, question, mod time, etc, and not just a fake one for a test that the system auto handles.

I've spotted an audit review once or twice, and when (for example) it's a non-answer needing flagging as "not an answer" the only difference for me was I did the audit quicker, because there is no love to potentially give to the non-answer like commenting to try to get the answerer to change it, and so I just quickly click flag.

But whether real or audit, or they take extra time to load or not, I think the point is to not try to ascertain when a review is an audit, or spend different time over one or another, and instead just action all reviews with consistency and accuracy and any you do will be fine.

  • 1
    I do take care. But if people get warned, audits make less sense. And yes, if I spot what I think is an audit, I click the flag straight away as it doesn't do anything on just clicking.
    – Szymon
    Sep 27, 2013 at 12:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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