8

This question already has an answer here:

I just met this review audit: https://stackoverflow.com/review/low-quality-posts/3354165

Obvious review audit

Wow, that's difficult to miss. You can see the high score of the answer, as well as the author's rep which is higher than 100k.

However, I remember that the review audits in the Close Votes review queue will "anonymize" the vote count and the author so that it can catch robo-reviewers more easily. More specifically, the vote count is replaced with a 0 instead of the original high score, and the user's name and reputation count is replaced so it is more obscure.

Why isn't this the case for the Low Quality Posts review audits? Shouldn't this be applied as well?

marked as duplicate by Martijn Pieters, Lance Roberts, Robert Harvey Nov 14 '13 at 21:12

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 3
    Frankly, I want it that way. – John Dvorak Nov 14 '13 at 6:39
  • 1
    They aren't supposed to be hard to spot, just ensure a bare minimum of paying attention – Richard Tingle Nov 14 '13 at 9:40
  • The number one consideration for review audits is to minimize "false negatives", by which I mean that non-robotic reviewers should have an easy time avoiding "STOP! Look and listen!" – Lord_Farin Nov 14 '13 at 11:18
  • @devnull No I don't think that is a duplicate. That question appears to be asked during early times of the review queue and users still didn't know about review audits, but this one is about something else – Alvin Wong Nov 14 '13 at 14:54