I've failed this audit on this question.

The problem is I've seen in my audit window something else as there actually is. The question in audit had tag, while actually it has no such tag, and I should have never seen that question because of the tag filter in close queue.

I've chosen to close as unclear what you are asking because I couldn't see what that has to do with JavaScript.

Please don't add random tags to audit questions and expect us to take no action.

  • The audit in question: stackoverflow.com/review/close/4019543 Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 10:09
  • I always click the link to the actual post before I take any action if I am uncertain about the review task. This is how I spot the randomly added tag and determine that it is an audit.
    – Antony
    Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 10:10
  • @GeorgeDuckett the audit doesn't show [javascript] tag, and I'm sure I've seen that tag. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to see that question because of filter on [javascript], [java] and [jquery]. Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 10:11
  • From looking at the audit via the above link, it looks like another issue is that it doesn't show the same tags that you saw at the time. Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 10:11
  • @ŁukaszL.: Just commented about that. Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 10:11
  • I guess the issue is that there won't be enough suitable audits if you filter to [some-super-obscure-tag]
    – OGHaza
    Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 10:11
  • 5
    The random tags are added so when you are filtering by tag in the queue, you actually get audits (this used to not happen). But rather than finding an audit in your tag, it just adds the tag whether the question had it or not. Obviously works great for "known bad" audits, but can be confusing at best for "known good" audits" Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 10:12
  • 3
    But the idea of tag filter is to filter the questions from my field of expertise. How am I supported to do good reviews if that assumption is broken? Anyway, adding anything gibberish to the question makes usually question bad and should be used only for bad-audits. Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 10:14
  • 1
    ^You would skip. I don't disagree with you but I think its a very minor issue. If a question is good then a wrong tag isn't reason for closure.
    – OGHaza
    Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 10:15
  • 3
    @OGHaza but wrong tags are a reason for reaction, so 'leave open' should also fail the audit? Am I expected to 'edit' the question? Will audit check if I remove gibberish tag? Otherwise, the audit is simply wrong. If it's by design, I will abstain from auditing. Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 10:19
  • 3
    But if you'd hit "edit" you'd have been told "You passed. Editing to fix minor problems is always good; Leave Open is also appropriate for questions like this.". If you see a good question with a wrong tag in the CV queue I absolutely think the only appropriate actions are Edit or Leave Open (+ go leave a comment or whatever if you feel the desire).
    – OGHaza
    Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 11:22
  • It'd be slightly different if it added a tag that did make the question completely unclear, a question for which the answer greatly varied by database tagged [mysql][sql-server] where the audit system added the [sql-server], but that'd be an edge case and you'd be much more likely to get thrown an obviously closable question as "good question" (as indicated by number of threads on meta about that happening)
    – OGHaza
    Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 11:28
  • In my opinion, abstain from reviewing is the correct response, and if there was enough noise on meta about it then maybe a feedback mechanism would be created to allow us to review audits.
    – jball
    Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 18:25

1 Answer 1


Are you not getting a bit trigger happy closing that as "Unclear what you're asking"?

The question is perfectly clear. It's irrelevant whether the system added to fake an audit, or whether the user accidentally added when posting the question.

An accidental tag being present is the same as there being a typo in the question, and you should have been trying to edit this out*, not voting to close because of it.

*Or skipping... there's never any harm in skipping

  • 4
    Of course, there is the risk that a user who sees a question about feature X in language Y mistagged as being language Z will simply say to himself "What is this nonsense? I know that there is no such thing as X in Z. This question is profoundly confused and nothing can be done but to close it." That doesn't seem totally unreasonable.
    – Mark Amery
    Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 18:32

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