-2

I've been banned from reviewing for 2 days, after failing a whopping 2 audits recently (edit: I don't believe I have previously failed any before these two, though I could be wrong. It certainly isn't a frequent occurrence).

This seems a little harsh, since I have successfully reviewed several hundred posts, including at least a couple dozen other audits. The one just now was a decision to downvote based on the fact that the question was a decent question, but pretty terribly worded, after which I was going to edit it to be less terribly worded, like I usually do.

Apparently, no, it was actually a good enough question that the badly-worded-ness shouldn't have counted against it, and now I'm banned (I totally don't remember what the other one was; it was a few days ago. I probably didn't agree with that one either, but I can't argue, because I don't remember what it was.)

Anyway, my point isn't to argue a particular review as being right or not, but really, dozens of audits successful but two "failed" and I'm banned for 2 days (presumably just from the luck of the draw that they happened to only be a couple days apart)? That seems just slightly too quick to decide I need a break. It's driving me crazy; I like taking short breaks from coding to check the review queue.

Not the end of the world, being it's only a couple hours this time, but my understanding based on other posts is that now if I pass a bunch of audits, and then fail another one months later, next time I'll be banned for even longer? How is that helpful to SO?

Seems like serial-upvoters or whatever would fail all their audits, not just one every once in a while?

2

after failing a whopping 2 audits recently

So then apparently you have a history of other past failed audits. This is highly relevant. People with a more problematic history are going to have a lower threshold for what it takes for them to end up review banned.

You should be more careful in how you review posts, and take the appropriate amount of time (which, for audits, is very little, really) because it would seem you're not paying as much attention as you ought to. The audits are doing their job in giving you some time to reflect on this fact, so that if/when you continue reviewing you will be more careful.

As it stands, the bar for what it takes to pass audits is really, really low. It doesn't need to be lowered. If anything, it should be raised.

  • I don't believe that I do? Is it possible to check? I don't recall having ever failed before, though it's certainly possible that I have once or twice. – neminem Feb 28 '14 at 21:40
  • @neminem You can look through the history on your profile. – Servy Feb 28 '14 at 21:41
  • FYI: only failed review audits in the last 30 days count toward a review ban. – hichris123 Feb 28 '14 at 21:42
  • @Servy Where? I know the activity log can show you reviews, but all it says is "reviewed". It doesn't say which reviews were audits, or whether you passed or not. I don't see anything specifically named "history"? I'm honestly curious now what my history was, whether maybe there were more I've forgotten about. Thanks. – neminem Feb 28 '14 at 21:44
  • @neminem If you actually go to the review page it will indicate whether or not it was an audit. There is no way of filtering the activity to just audits, or even seeing what are audits from that view. – Servy Feb 28 '14 at 21:46
  • 1
    @Servy Ah. So I would have to go through all several hundred reviews I've done (I don't remember an exact number, and can't access the page that would tell me at the moment, but I think it was around 600). That's... not very friendly. – neminem Feb 28 '14 at 21:47
  • @neminem Yes. It's not particularly effective, I agree. I do wish there was a better way. – Servy Feb 28 '14 at 21:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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