4

I was in the middle of conducting some 'First Post' reviews and didn't pass a review audit. Mea Culpa.

However, what surprised me is that after failing this one audit, I received the response:

You have failed too many recent review audits – looks like you might need a break. Come back in 2 days to continue reviewing.

After reading this it struck me as odd because the way it reads, it sounds like it is implying that I have recently failed more than one audit, which I haven't. In fact, I have had a large number of passes recently. I don't even recall when was the last time I failed a review audit.

So my questions/requests are:

  1. Can this wording be updated to include the number of failed audits a person has within the duration of time that the site uses to determine a ban was needed so as to remove any ambiguity in that statement?

  2. I come from the mentality that practice makes perfect, but if the site is going to ban an individual from the review activity for two days after they fail just a single audit, and especially if they have had a high number of successful audits within the last n days and no failed audits, it just feels a bit harsh of a reaction in my honest opinion. Perhaps a ban is in order after multiple failed audits (2 perhaps?), within the past n hours/days may be a better approach. This isn't a huge change, and the sanity check to see how many successful audits the user has passed within the last n days should be indicative of the overall quality of the reviews the person is capable of.

Cheers.

  • 2
    It's an algorithm. Also, sometimes you may be watched by higher authorities. It mostly calculated based on how quick you go through the reviews because it's not the quantity that matters here, it's the quality we're after. – user221081 Jan 24 '14 at 8:07
8

Perhaps a ban is in order after multiple failed audits (2 perhaps?), within the past n hours/days may be a better approach.

That's pretty much already how it works, albeit with some modifications that take into account the queue you're in, how quickly you're reviewing, etc.

The wording on both the audit-failure screen and the ban-screen could use some love; I'm rather fond of this suggestion: Could we make the review-banned-by-a-mod notice say something more descriptive?

I'm not in favor of putting specific details about the exact criteria for automated bans on the page though. The point is to get you to take a break and return a bit more careful, not figure out how to work around the system.

  • Thank you for the info. I wasn't aware that it is [somewhat] implemented in that fashion already. I'll read the other answer you linked to; it would be nice to 'give some love' as you put it to the messages, but I do understand your reasoning behind not wanting to give away too many details. There's gotta be a middle ground though to make it a little more descriptive without being too explicit. Cheers. – Anil Natha Jan 24 '14 at 4:53

You must log in to answer this question.

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