2

I just failed an audit, and suddenly I got this message:

You have failed too many recent review audits ...

I was a bit surprised about this, because I don't really remember failing so many audits. Since there is no indicator about it, I don't really feel like going through all activities of the last days just to find out when the last failed audit happened. I know for sure that I I did > 40 today and there was only the one which showed me this message.

If I fail so many audits that the systems feels I need to be suspended, I would at least like to know whats wrong.

The review which triggered it, was this one, not that I'm disputing it.

marked as duplicate by gnat, ale, Undo, scrblnrd3, Duncan Jones Jan 10 '14 at 15:13

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.

  • It usully tells you what's wrong on each audit. With edit audits its usually that the edit introduces spam – Richard Tingle Jan 10 '14 at 14:36
  • I'm not talking about this particular audit, but wether I really failed so many audits that it warrants a suspension. I mean, I can live with it, but I would like to know at least. – Devolus Jan 10 '14 at 14:38
  • The overall reason is made up in it's entirety by the sum of all the little reasons. Theres nothing more to be added to that. But basically it's a suggestion that you need to take a break, then slow down your reviewing – Richard Tingle Jan 10 '14 at 14:43
  • 1
    I'm not sure if you failed more than one audit, but don't you agree those Suggested Edit audits are so obvious you should get a ban if you fail one? – hichris123 Jan 10 '14 at 14:44
  • 2
    Your last failed audit was very obviously a bad edit. It's not making a good case for you not deserving to be temporarily banned. – JDB Jan 10 '14 at 14:48
  • 2
    Yes, I made a mistake there and I know that it was wrong as it should have been obvious and I didn't look carefully enough. So I don't disagree that this shouldn't be pointed out. I'm just suprised that it triggeres a ban immediately. – Devolus Jan 10 '14 at 14:48
  • @Devolus: AFAICT, the moderators have almost zero tolerance in this regard. At least, that is my experience and opinion. I agree that a prior warning would be probably more mature when it is not an audit issue so that the reviewer could learn from it, and improve the situation. I believe it is better to assume good faith than instructing the "penalty" abruptly. – lpapp Jan 10 '14 at 22:20
8

You get an explanation every time. And it doesn't have to be all failed audits in the same review session. You can have failed 2 yesterday, 1 today and still get a review ban.

Also we cannot simply let the user have an indication about where he is on failed audits according to the server. Robo-reviewers would wait to get to the limit of the ban before even starting to care.

Changing :

messege = raw_input()
if messege == "SEND":

To :

messege = raw_input()
if messege is linking issues on the == "SEND":

This makes no sense at all. The Audit bot simply adds part of senteces to the body of the question (even in the code in that situation and it clearly makes no sense at all.

I say wait for the ban to finish and be careful with your next edits because it is for decisions like the one you made on this review that the audits where implemented.

  • 2
    He didn't dispute this failure, it's indeed a bad review. He's just saying that one mistake shouldn't have caused a ban. I also didn't see any other audit failures in his recent history. – Leeor Jan 10 '14 at 15:07
  • 1
    @Leeor ... and I didn't say it's the only reason of the ban. Take a look at Bill's answer. I just explained that it is a bad review, there are no excuses for it and it could lead to a ban because it is a completely skipped review but that bad calls he had before could play in the ban today. – ʞunɥdɐpɐɥd Jan 10 '14 at 15:11
7

In addition to the failed audit, I found five reviews in the past 24 hours where you decided against the action that was eventually taken.

Rejected but you Approved:

https://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3765724

Approved but you Rejected:

https://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3764504
https://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3774205
https://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3774203
https://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3766845

I don't know for certain, but it seems that these might also factor in to the review queue ban.

  • 8
    Oh god, I hope not - I often reject bad edits and they later get approved by new people that don't really know what they're doing (fresh example) - am I about to get banned? :) – Leeor Jan 10 '14 at 15:10
  • 1
    One problem I definitely have is that it there is no clear guide how to review minor edits like fixing typos. In such cases I often see different rulings than mine, like in this case: stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3766845 or stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/3774203. I guess in the future I will just kip those. – Devolus Jan 10 '14 at 15:15
  • 3
    @Leeor I completely agree. I'm often the sole voice saying "too minor", while the robots hit "Approve". Every approver on that review you linked to should get a little ban - that was awful. – Duncan Jones Jan 10 '14 at 15:15
  • 4
    It's not encouraging that even the mods don't know how the review bans work ;) – Wooble Jan 10 '14 at 15:20
  • @Devolus I would definitely approve both of those. If an edit fixes a typo and leaves behind a bunch of other stuff that needs fixed, go ahead and reject it. If it significantly improves the post by fixing code formatting or fixing a dozen minor typos, I'd approve it. – Bill the Lizard Jan 10 '14 at 15:23
  • @Leeor This is only from today. If these count towards the ban at all, I'm sure it's calibrated to not trip on the average number of "wrong" reviews, but a significantly high number of them. – Bill the Lizard Jan 10 '14 at 15:25
  • 1
    @Wooble They probably don't tell us because they know we'd blab it all in exchange for a few Meta points. ;) – Bill the Lizard Jan 10 '14 at 15:29
  • 1
    I'm pretty sure I'd have been banned by now for disagreeing with the robo-approvers if there were a low threshhold. – Wooble Jan 10 '14 at 15:30
  • 1
    @Wooble I'd love to see the data behind setting the auto-ban thresholds. It would be interesting to see if robo-reviewers ever outnumbered the people paying attention, and how much the proportion of robos has changed over time. – Bill the Lizard Jan 10 '14 at 15:33

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