3

I was audited by the review system with this question. I decided to flag it for closure because the problem had "gone away". When I did so, I got this education...:

STOP!

From my point of view, this question is not high quality nor a good subject for a audit. Who flags question to be usable for audits? What kind of consequences does failing one have?

4
  • If you look at the actual question, not just the cut down audit version, you will see it is a high voted question with a high voted answer. No one flags for audit, as far as I know, it is random. If you fail to many you will get banned from review. I don't know how many fails it takes though.askubuntu.com/questions/748917/…
    – Mark Kirby
    Commented Apr 18, 2016 at 8:52
  • I saw the votes after the audit reveals. I dont even have the time and motivation to check each review in original to check if it is a audit - however I do it often if there is a suspicion
    – cmks
    Commented Apr 18, 2016 at 9:02
  • " dont even have the time and motivation to check each review in original to check if it is a audit" Most people don't, I agree, some of the audits are crap but you should not worrie about one fail, if in doubt, just press skip. The point is to catch users who are just on auto pilot reviewing questions. We all fail them every now and again, I found this post on meta that explains banning from review, seems it is based on a scale , so don't worrie if you pass many more than you fail meta.stackexchange.com/questions/195099/…
    – Mark Kirby
    Commented Apr 18, 2016 at 9:09
  • Opinions vary and thus, IMO, moderation, in this case review close votes, is BEST DONE by more then one person. I find I disagree with the audit results from time to time, and sometimes I disagree with the audit results. It is just an opportunity for you to learn how the majority would act. Missing a few or disagreeing with a few is par for the course.
    – Panther
    Commented Apr 18, 2016 at 15:21

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6

Audits are completely automated. They'll pick "known" good or bad posts (based on previous actions) and test you. There are also some random insertion tests in the suggested edit queue.

This was one of the known good posts, to catch people who are trigger happy with closure.

I think this is one of those rare injustices the audit system occasionally springs. I think you were also caught out by the wording of the update. Even with the workaround, there remains a question that warrants answering (Why the hell am I seeing penises when I search for gedit?)

There's nothing I can do to remedy you having fallen into this one, but we can work on improving the question to make sure future reviewers don't have the same problem.

I'll edit it up but contribute if you feel you'd still vote to close it.

And just a reminder: the odd failed audit isn't the end of the world. There are much trickier ones than this and I think all the mods have at least a few failed audits on record. The system only takes notice if you fail many within a period of time.

3

I decided to flag it for closure because the problem had "gone away".

Not quite. The problem still exists. What fooled you is the fact that the question also contained the answer. You interpreted "If I deselect the Reference field in Filter results, these explicit pictures go away" as the problem had gone away, which is undeniably true, but it indeed needed a workaround to be applied before doing so, so the question technically didn't fit the close reason:

This describes a problem that can't be reproduced that seemingly went away on its own or was only relevant to a very specific period of time. It's off-topic as it's unlikely to help future readers.

  • "This describes a problem that can't be reproduced" -> the problem is reproduceable on a default installation or by enabling "Reference" if previously disabled.
  • "that seemingly went away on its own" -> it didn't went away on its own, OP had to disable "Reference".
  • "It's off-topic as it's unlikely to help future readers" -> it'll most likely help anyone else with the same problem.

However I agree some reviews are tricky / misleading / inevitabily lead the reviewer to fail. In this specific case the system did the job well, but only for coincidence. Whatever initially apparently weird (read as in "interesting") question may get a number of upvotes high enough for it to become selectable for an audit even if the real problem is something pretty dumb like a typo, however that specific case is (luckily) pretty rare.

So you have a point. +1.

You must log in to answer this question.

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