The review audit is a little fault-prone in my eyes. I did quite some reviews the last days because I think this is one of the best ways to see new posts and maybe find one to answer while doing something sensible and useful for the network.

Doing so I had to observe that the review suspension algorithm is quite harsh. When I started doing reviews, I must admit that I was a little sloppy and failed some review audits and got my first suspension - I assume for a day or something like that. After that, the next suspension is triggered after 1 failed audit for a week and the last one after the next failed audit for a month. This happened after passing plenty other audits! I think this is bluntly a random suspension generator - humans are not 100% accurate and there will be a wrong audit once in a while.

My key point here is, that there is a difference between failing an audit right after a suspension after reviewing 10 posts, and a failed audit after reviewing 100 posts and passing a lot audits in the meantime. I think it is generally a good idea to have increasing suspension times - however I do not see a reason to reset the suspension algorithm after the 1 month suspension as it is implemented currently ...

To make this more fair, I think there should be a consideration of a ratio between passed and failed audits. E.g. a ratio of 1 failed to 15 passed. In addition but maybe more complicated I would suggest to consider a ratio between helpful and disputed to declined flags.

Following this approach would encourage users to make quality reviews without disadvantage users that make a lot reviews.

  • I certainly agree that there are some bad audits, but there aren't enough of those to get review-banned very often at all. You'd have to be remarkably unlucky to get three bans from bad audits, even with an awful lot of reviews, especially since after a while audits start to become a little easier to spot as such. – Nathan Tuggy May 26 '15 at 21:03
  • What did you think was wrong with this answer?

  • You seem to think that this question is OK but nobody else does?

  • Here too

  • and here where the comments on the question indicate that various people are trying to figure out what the questioner's problem actually is.

Those are from the last hour of your reviewing when I looked at it and where you're getting a different result as compared to everyone else. Of course, there may be occasions where you're the only one who's correct (and the above questions could be those cases).

Are you trying to review things in tags you're not experienced in (in which case Skip is the right action)?

The review ban is telling you that you're either not being careful enough while reviewing or that you possibly lack the experience and knowledge to do it properly. It's there so that you can reflect and improve on your reviewing, possibly by going through your recent reviews and seeing where they differ from the other reviewers and trying to decide why for yourself and what to do about it.

Don't just resume reviewing in the same way each time you're banned, that's why the ban gets longer to give you a sharper kick each time that you need to stop and think.

  • Well first of all, you are right with your examples! These reviews are very bad - I'm really sorry and I will try to improve. Secondly this post wasn't about me trying to say, that my suspension would be unjustified. I just think the algorithm is disproportionate and not considering any ratio of correct to bad reviews nor rewarding a quality improvement over time. I sense that my reviews are already getting better compared to the first ones but I have to get a feeling for what the network considers good quality and in this process the current system is more discouraging than rewarding... – Markus May 26 '15 at 9:21
  • 3
    The system is designed to discourage reviews from those who are not doing it properly and who can't or won't improve. So it's working exactly as designed. You don't need to sense whether your reviews are getting better, just look through your review history and you'll see the facts right there. At least you're seeking input here rather than trying to carry on blindly, that's a good sign. – Robert Longson May 26 '15 at 9:43
  • If you don't know what's considered good quality on StackExchange you shouldn't be reviewing. Reviewing is not the way to be learning what's acceptable on this network. – Lawrence Dol May 26 '15 at 15:56

The purpose of audits is to help you get better at reviewing, not to help you get better at reviewing audits.

That should not be a particularly controversial assertion... Therefore,

The purpose of review suspension is to prevent you from reviewing when you're clearly struggling to review well.

Review suspensions are a possibility on all sites, even those where auditing is disabled. Even on sites where audits are common, moderators can and frequently do suspend review privileges for folks who are blatantly struggling to review well.

Therefore, it is critical that you don't consider review suspensions as some sort of a penalty for not passing enough audits. Passing audits is assumed - if you can pass audits, you might be able to review actual posts properly. If you can't consistently pass audits, then your ability to review actual posts is deeply suspect.

The number of audits you're given is tied closely to the total number of posts you review. The more you review, the more harm you stand to do by reviewing badly. The expectation is that you'll get better at it - and indeed, that's what usually happens. If you're not getting better, then you need to stop until you can improve.

You must log in to answer this question.

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