Am I reviewing correctly?

Question

Okay, (to be honest) I'm not happy about this but I've been review banned for 2 days (it appears that it's been done by the system). Now 2 days isn't a long time, but I'd just like to understand what I'm doing wrong and what I can do to improve my reviewing in the future - I would have thought that my reviewing was a positive step towards improving the community, but it doesn't seem that much so. Looking back on the failed review audits, (out of a total of 583 reviews, and 40 passed audits) I've failed 3 of them in all the time that I've been reviewing posts:

• the first one is discussed in the following meta post: Is this really an acceptable answer?
• the second was when I attempted to add a comment on what appeared to be an empty, newbie question: Are there cases where while/do-while must be used instead of for?
• the third was when the page was loading, but all of a sudden (without any deliberate action on my part - maybe I was going a bit too fast) it said that I failed the review audit: C# Using Lazy.Value right after its declaration

Could someone check over my other reviews in the past and see whether my overall reviewing has been below the standard that it should be, and if so what can be done about it so that I can avoid doing that in the future? That would be very much appreciated.

Answer 1

The 2nd one was a borderline unfair audit failure. Trying to add a comment shouldn't trigger a failure, but with the way the auditing mechanism works, trying to comment on bad post will pass the audit and trying to comment on a good post will fail the audit. The reasoning is that you shouldn't need to add a comment on a good post.

And that post isn't bad, so when you tried to leave a comment, it triggered the failure. Questions like that are "better" suited for Programmers.SE since it is more of a design question, but it certainly isn't a bad post or off-topic for SO.

The 3rd audit failure that you mentioned, is what prompted me to respond.

Specifically, why did you click "Recommend Deletion" for that post?

It is possible you are misunderstanding the purpose of the Low Quality Post queue. Generally speaking, it is not for run-of-the-mill poor quality posts. "Recommend Deletion" in that queue is for completely horrible, awful, off-topic and non-conforming posts that cannot be salvaged through editing, and need to cease to exist as quickly as possible.

You are looking for things like

• Spam
• Offensive posts
• "Thanks" or "Me Too" answers
• Follow-up questions posted as answers
• People posting joke questions
• Questions that are so completely off topic that it isn't even funny (like a post asking about Health Care choices or something off the wall).

You are basically looking at stuff that needs to disappear faster than the community can delete it normally (which requires 5 close votes, a 2 day wait for most users, and then 3 delete votes - although a downvoted post can get deleted faster).

That question in the audit seems to be a legit question and has no reason to be deleted, let alone that quickly. You might not have thought it was a suitable question for Stack Overflow (I'd disagree, I think it's an ok question), but even if you thought it was a poor quality question, it is certainly not bad enough to warrant "immediate" deletion. I know it is counter intuitive, but questions that are just off-topic or poor quality that need to be closed or downvoted need to be reviewed as "Looks Good".

This is roughly the same situation as the first audit post you referenced. In fact Robert's answer on your question gives you some pretty good feedback on how to evaluate the Low Quality Posts from an answer perspective. But the general idea is still the same for Low Quality Post questions, deletion is reserved for something that needs to go quickly and can't be addressed via the normal community moderation.