14

I was a few times blocked from reviewing for not passing audits (rather controversial ones). Since the last block I can't remember any failed audits, but I've passed a couple of them. Now I've failed that audit on that question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21984543/google-chrome-bug-website-not-displaying-text and boom

You have failed too many recent review audits – looks like you might need a break. Come back in 7 days to continue reviewing.(more)

Why have I voted to close the linked question? Because it provides no code example, only a link to the site and "please diagnose my problem with that site". I don't think such questions are good. After a year the site will be either fixed or no longer operated, and the question will be probably useless.

What is the issue? The issue is, no matter how many audits I will pass, I will be blocked for failing single one, and with current system failing an audit is the question of time, until you install browser extension checking if it's an audit.

How to fix it?

  • never block for failing single audit
  • count passed audits since last review block, not only the failed ones
  • don't count failed audits forever, use some time window
  • remove failed audits from the history, if the audit was disputed (the action contradicting the audit was taken, for example the question in leave-open audit was actually closed)

The last point is the most important one, because current mechanism of choosing audits is overly flawed. Meeting bad audits is as sure as death and taxes.

A positive aspect of current system: I don't care for the size of the close queue anymore. At least not in the next 7 days.

Improve this question
9
  • As far as I know, there is some time window for failed audits. But I'm afraid, that when you have been blocked a few times, the threshold goes to one failed audit. Not sure if the threshold is changed after serious improvement. And maybe you should review your review process.
    – Toon Krijthe
    Mar 26, 2014 at 8:01
  • An instant get-out-of-jail-free for disputing could be abused to hell and back. Might need more of a paper trail for that process.
    – michaelb958--GoFundMonica
    Mar 26, 2014 at 8:01
  • @michaelb958 closing audit requires 5 close votes, so unless you have 4 puppetsuckers, you're unlikely to do that if there's nothing wrong with the question. If you do have them, we have a more severe abuse.
    – Danubian Sailor
    Mar 26, 2014 at 8:03
  • 8
    Single failed audits don't cause a ban.
    – Flexo
    Mar 26, 2014 at 8:04
  • @Łukasz웃Lツ I thought posts were only used for audits if they had never been down- or close-voted, and one of either would instantly disqualify it.
    – michaelb958--GoFundMonica
    Mar 26, 2014 at 8:04
  • @michaelb958 I've written, that audit should be considered disputed when the contracting action was taken, so for example, the question is closed. Maybe I wasn't clear enough
    – Danubian Sailor
    Mar 26, 2014 at 8:06
  • 2
    @Flexo they can, I failed one audit last week and got a 7 day ban.
    – Howli
    Mar 26, 2014 at 8:08
  • @PeterHorvath: That is a different story. You did leave a VLQ answer as is, which is clearly not the case here.
    – Patrick Hofman
    Mar 26, 2014 at 8:31
  • @PeterHorvath: I was referring to the answer which in your case was bad. It has no use to refer to your own case in the question of someone else.
    – Patrick Hofman
    Mar 26, 2014 at 8:52

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
9

The ban was caused by multiple audit failures, not just a single failure. It is the accumulation of failures that results in a ban.

Having said that I've looked through the reviews and I can't say I think a 7 day ban is fair. You're certainly not a robo reviewer and the ones I looked at all seemed reasonable. I've manually lifted the ban as a result.

Improve this answer
6
  • 2
    FWIW: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/199218/… would make looking into cases like this (and the opposite) far less painful.
    – Flexo
    Mar 26, 2014 at 8:47
  • 5
    Regarding disputing audits, lots of people think otherwise.
    – Stijn
    Mar 26, 2014 at 8:48
  • @stijn - fair point, I like Brad's answer there
    – Flexo
    Mar 26, 2014 at 8:56
  • 1
    The OP seems to be suggesting that rather than a single failure causing a ban that if n failures are required for a ban then once n-1 failures are achieved then a ban will be caused by 1 more failure for all time. I don't know if that's true, but it is different from a single failure causing a ban instantly
    – Richard Tingle
    Mar 26, 2014 at 9:11
  • It should always be noted that a moderator manually lifting a review ban does not clear out past audits. They'll still be counted and if you fail another audit too soon, you will get banned again. That manual removal is more just "extending the post" for a specific case to give a user another chance.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Mar 26, 2014 at 13:51
  • 1
    @animuson exactly, the problem remains. I'm pretty sure once such audit as that, and I'll be blocked again. Because the audit system is like that, failed audits are something that should be expected from time to time, so noone should be blocked for single failed audit, as long as the percentage of failed audits in some time window is not above critical. Audits in edits queue are something else. They are so obvious that you can fail them only by not taking care.
    – Danubian Sailor
    Mar 26, 2014 at 14:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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