0
$\begingroup$

I was doing some reviews, until I saw this strange post:

enter image description here

So, this made me wonder whether questions written in another language were allowed here, so I added a comment asking about that. Then, I got this in the comments box:

enter image description here

This clearly indicates that this post is an audit, which provides an easy way to cheat the review system by adding a test comment. I believe that this was a mistake on MSE's part and should be looked into.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No easy way to cheat, unless you knew to vote to close or not close/reopen. I don't think that the reveal that it was an audit disclosed that to you. So it still required your judgment. As an audit, one or the other choice would have led to failure. Right? $\endgroup$ – amWhy Mar 19 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ I do not understand your first comment @amWhy $\endgroup$ – Some Guy Mar 19 at 19:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Did you know from learning that the post was an audit post, how to then respond, to pass the audit? Whether to upvote or downvote? $\endgroup$ – amWhy Mar 19 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ Oh I see @amWhy $\endgroup$ – Some Guy Mar 19 at 19:19
  • $\begingroup$ There is a thread on meta.math.se to alert to problematic review audits, because they are based on simple algorithms that aren't always reliable. Let me search for that: $\endgroup$ – amWhy Mar 19 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ This behavior changes based on the Review type being audited. In some cases posting a Comment causes one to fail, in other cases to pass the audit. For more on these possibilities see Types where Comments are allowed (or not) in Review Audits. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Mar 19 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ Examples of poor review audits. This is a site-specific thread, where users on our site, math.se, can report problematic review audits. And there are a good many problems with review audits. $\endgroup$ – amWhy Mar 19 at 19:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is a question about the StackExachange software in general, and not about Math SE. This question is more appropriately asked on Meta Stack Exchange. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Mar 19 at 19:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As an aside, while Math SE serves a primarily English speaking audience, there is not (to my knowledge) any requirement that business here be conducted in English. Thus the answer to the comment you tried to leave was "Yes." The problem with this post is that it was spam (according to Google translate, there is a request that readers contact the answerer privately; the translation doesn't answer the question; etc). $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Mar 19 at 19:42
  • $\begingroup$ There is a requirement that posts be in English, unless posted on one of the exceptions which are in a different, specified other language. $\endgroup$ – Nij Mar 20 at 4:09
1
$\begingroup$

That's a nice find, but it's not a bug, it's a feature. According to the Q&A This review is obviously an audit. Is this a bug? on Meta Stack Overflow:

No, this is not a bug. Audits are not designed to be challenging, so there is no need to report "bugs" when you discover clever ways to figure out what review tasks are really audits. There's also no need to report "mistakes" in the review task that give away the fact that it's an audit, even if they don't occur in normal audits. These mistakes are included on purpose.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ But they are not designed to be very good, either, as they are limited by the simplistic algorithms that create them. $\endgroup$ – amWhy Mar 19 at 19:32

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