I am working on removing a "post ban" on Stack Overflow. I have been answering questions, I have already done what edits I could see to old questions and have moved on to "reviewing posts" as there are not a lot of questions I can answer.

Does "reviewing posts" help remove a "post ban"?

I searched both Google and Meta before posting this, but only saw posts about a "review ban".

  • 4
    I think your efforts to contribute are commendable.
    – amWhy
    Commented May 31, 2019 at 17:57
  • 1
    “there are not a lot of questions I can answer.” - Why do you feel that is the case. There are thousands of questions without an answer that can be answered on Stack Overflow. There are likely hundreds of VBA questions
    – Ramhound
    Commented Jun 1, 2019 at 12:44

2 Answers 2


Probably not. While the exact details are secret, even from moderators, the goal of a post ban is to encourage improvements to existing posts (and the occasional future one). There's certainly a reputation element - but I'm unaware of reviews helping.

This is a good thing - the aim of reviews shouldn't be getting out of your post ban, it should be to help curate a site to which you're already a contributor in (reasonably) good standing.

Your first port of call should be reviewing, understanding and fixing issues with your current posts, posting good posts of the sort you can post (and quality absolutely matters), rather than trying to get out of a post ban by whatever means necessary.


No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. Hear me out.

Looking at your public profile this is roughly your quality-ban result for Stack Overflow, based on this formula: (total questions - negative questions - closed - deleted) / total questions >= 0.5:

enter image description here click image for the actual SEDE query

The deleted posts are the ones that put you in the ban. If you don't have links to them, flag one of your posts and ask a mod for the links.

We are looking for positive contributions to the community. Posting quality content is what we value most. Next to it are edits, voting and flagging. These are all considered positive contributions.

When you are quality banned and are bound to either fixing your old (deleted) posts or relying on the one post each 6 months, you need that time to learn and recognize what quality content looks like and which posts are well received and which ones aren't.

  • Suggesting edits: if you improve posts (and keep an eye on the results) you earn a bit of reputation for good edits and you might see posts getting upvotes after you made a clarifying edit. Noticing which posts benefit from your edits and which don't as well as which edits gets approved and which won't will learn you what quality looks like for the Stack Overflow crowd.
  • Reviews: By participating in reviewing you get exposed to a variety of posts. You get a feel for your judgement skills and again will be able to distinguish good posts from bad posts. I have a handy user script that shows you your own review result against your peers
  • Flagging: Raising flags on posts that don't qualify for being good posts (either for being off-topic / too broad / duplicate or for being non-answers) helps both you and future visitors so only the good content remains. It is highly confusing if the site seem to host both low quality stuff and good content. Again, watching your raised flags page and their resolution tells you if you're on track.

The learning experience from all of the above actions should help you to judge up front if a question you're about to post will be received positively or not. That judgement doesn't come with a low number of reviews in each queue or suggested edits. Think long term, doing your daily allotment for 6 to 8 weeks. If you're planning for the one question per 6 months that isn't much of investment to ask.

tl;dr; Does reviewing posts help? Indirect, yes. But having done 1000 reviews by itself doesn't lift the quality ban.

You must log in to answer this question.

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