17
The only way to disagree is to downvote the answer. Personally, I think it is an excellent answer that gives the only reasonable solution to a rather silly question. It is certainly the simplest, most obvious and most foolproof solution even if it isn't technical. The fact that it's a hardware solution (so to speak) and not a software one doesn't make it a ...
15
It's just a duplicate that went hot before anybody found the dupe. The audit system frowns on downvoting or closing posts it picked as examples of good posts, even if they are legitimate actions. It's dumb, but, it is what it is and what it is is difficult to improve.
I'd suggest that you always click the link to the post to verify you're shown the actual ...
11
Audits are generated automatically by the system, there is no manual human verification of them involved, as far as I know. It just takes any post it deems as good, based on the metrics it knows (vote score, is accepted, maybe view count, ...) and shows that content to you in a less obvious way (i.e. hiding the votes etc.).
So yes, of course this system is ...
10
It is technically a valid solution, there are even whole ranges of products you can buy to do this exact thing but I agree, it is not a great answer from a technical stand point.
The thing is, people can vote for what ever they like, even the OP accepted it. Audits are automatic, so I doubt there is much anyone can do, it was not tampered with and the ...
10
Don't fret, you're not alone, all of us have failed the occasional tricky audit. Some of them are, what I call bad audits, but to stop people from robot reviewing they are a good thing and that is what counts. Being myself annoyed with audits from time to time, yep even failing some. Doesn't keep me from reviewing.
One rule of thumb you should go for when ...
10
Yes, you're right, it makes no sense at all that trying to add a comment causes you to fail an audit when the post is high quality. You are also right that the system does not read your comment to see if it is reasonable (also, on a personal note, if commenting is going to cause me to fail an audit, can I please fail as soon as I click add a comment instead ...
9
Here were my thoughts on loading the link.
Bloody hell, that's short. Maybe Hugo's onto someth...
Hang on, that's an interesting problem.
This is certainly reflective of my personal interests but scripting and programming is my $DAYJOB and silly little problems like this are the sort of nonsense that hold things up. Having it asked, and answered makes the ...
8
My question is, however, what if I had flagged this post?
Even though the UI seems to indicate you flagged the post, the flag itself is never cast. I've tested this a while ago after somebody asked a similar question on Meta Stack Exchange.
Depending on what flag you use, it might cause you to fail the audit though. I'm pretty sure this holds for the spam, ...
7
Ok, you can't improve an edit like that. Reasons:
It defaces the post. Replacing Reading state information... Done with something else is not necessary. It obscures a message in the post about apt-get.
The reason of the edit doesn't apply. An edit that says "improved link display" but doesn't improve any link must be summarily rejected, you don't need to ...
7
You could click the link to view the question on the main site to examine the post more thoroughly.
If it is really a spam post that hasn't been deleted yet, flag it as such. Or if it is not spam but otherwise bad but not fitting a close reason, downvote and/or flag accordingly. Maybe even leave a comment if you think the OP could fix the post or would ...
6
I don't know exactly how review audits are generated, but it looks like the question is displayed as is. If that is always the case, then a deleted answer would most probably cause a wrong count in one or other of the small numbers on the right panels as you noticed here (other answers count or answer count) and reveal the auditness at a glance. I have ...
6
It wasn't identified as spam, on the contrary, it was identified as high quality and that's why it was used in a review audit. Review audits are there to stop "robo reviewing": people who just blindly click through a review queue in order to get a badge. Yes, such people actually exist and they're why we have review audits in the first place.
In ...
5
This might not be the same audit, technically.
We got a large number of similar or identical spam/troll posts like that one. You're probably getting different ones in each audit, that look similar.
I've gotten a number of audits with that spam as well.
5
No, actually the lack of a well defined quality policies will dismiss the usefulness of the audits, I've failed 2 audits already just because of this (and went outside of the queue and voted to close them). The system selects seriously upvoted posts as examples, but upvotes is not the face value of a post (for example this Comparison of backup tools).
Your ...
5
With 6 audits under your belt in 3 days, you're near the top of the list for "most audited". Mostly, that's just because you do a lot of reviews, but some of it is due to plain old luck...
Review audit frequency is semi-random: you shouldn't get in a situation where every review is an audit, but if you're unlucky you can end up encountering them fairly ...
5
This post from 2017 suggests the vote does not get registered on the real post. If you want your vote to stick, you have to go through to the real post and vote.
I (correctly) upvoted it as a reasonable post and passed the review audit; however, when I looked at it later, my upvote hadn't actually been applied. (I was able to manually upvote it later).
I'm ...
5
Once you're sure it's an audit, anything would be fine.
5
According to https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/158678/280883
Here are the full details on how the ban works. Most of the steps take into account the length of any previous review bans you've faced, including manual bans imposed by a moderator:
If you fail three audits within a (rolling) 30-day period, you will be banned for 2 days if you have no ...
4
Audits are usually for identifying and suspend "robot reviewers" who click on "No action needed" or up/down vote for every post they encounter. If you observed the answers count, you're surely not a robot and were paying attention while reviewing. As of now the question on which that answer was posted has 2 more deleted answers (visible ...
4
I am not good at reviewing but if we look at this special case the other way round we have to admit that this question:
is resolved, i.e. has an accepted answer
has many upvotes not only to the question but also to answers
is well recognized with 647 views as today
has a potential to help others because of the nice answer it has
So, irrespect of what the ...
4
Nothing you do in a review audit is real. I think of review audits as mock-ups based on real posts. The post score will be shown differently from the real score, the author's picture and reputation may be fake, and the post itself may already have been deleted. We cannot interact with this mirage. Follow the link to the real post to upvote for real.
Shog9 ...
4
This is just an edge-case that, frankly, most folks will never hit.
Audits are generated based on criteria that avoid posts with close votes. And review tasks associated with posts that you've voted to close are filtered out for you. However...
If the system generates an audit for you, and you open the post and vote to close it, and then jump back into ...
4
The audits will not go away. They are in place due several complains about reviewers not reviewing or misusing the review queues. Summary, reviewers bring this forth by themself. Now, if you seriously fails so many review audits in good faith, then go outside the queue and fix the issue you found!
Downvote, vote to close, edit, flag, etc. That's why there ...
3
The Community user randomly puts tests into the review queues. This is to check whether the reviewers pay attention and do their work right. A single mistake has no consequences, but many of them may lead to a review ban.
It just takes posts that were reviewed earlier by real humans and found to be not worth keeping on the site for whatever reason. (There ...
3
The review audit system really isn't that smart, which is why you get questions that you have already dealt with.
Remember the audits aren't here to test you, they're here to catch robo reviewers who fly through the review queue applying the same action to every post. They should be easy for you to catch.
I do agree however, that the frequency could be ...
2
Review audits are frequently intentionally tricky and weird. It's a common practice on the Stack Exchange network designed to teach the reviewer to stop, look and listen. It's not unusual at Stack Overflow to find audit questions in the close vote review that have an accepted self-answer posted by the author of the question. My first instinct would be to ...
2
This has been reported several times before. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to reproduce it reliably.
...With one exception: Opening the post editor in a new tab does not pass a review audit
If you trigger the edit link on a review item, it will normally let you pass the audit and move on to the next item. However, this is activated via JavaScript - ...
2
Downvote (nobody receives the same audit), vote to close (rightfully), and move on.
2
Yes, this is a confusing case, however looking at the timeline clears it up. The system created the audit 17 hours ago (at this writing) and it sat in the queue until you happen to get it in review. By that time there were already 3 close votes, hence the confusion.
You're probably thinking it should be removed once the post receives close votes, that ...
2
The question, and the answer content:
Try using a live distro to edit or remove your /root/.bashrc.
The answer is correct, but it's far from being a good answer. The question already knows it's a broken /root/.bashrc file so the answer might as well just say:
Fix it!
The OP figured that out and restored the file from /etc/skel/ in the end. They ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
