32

Side complaint: I seem to be getting an awful lot of review audits, maybe one per five legitimate review requests. If you are asking me to spend my time performing community service, I would prefer you not waste my time with pointless "fake" tasks.


29

The newest and one of the most ridiculous examples to date: https://math.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts/109542 I failed this by clicking "add comment". That's right. You're not allowed to comment when you're being audited. I'm filing a bug report.


25

I have failed a few. One interesting thing is that, for "close" audits at least, the system lies about the vote count, showing 0 instead of the actual vote count. Which seems to be counterproductive: it appears they change the vote count to encourage reviewers to evaluate the question independently, but then they criticize the reviewer being too independent ...


18

I failed a review audit for this question because I went to close it as duplicate as I recognised the title and content of the post so thought it was an exact duplicate of itself (the review had artificially made it appear that the question was written 2 hours ago). This highlights a flaw in the system in my opinion.


17

https://math.stackexchange.com/a/508096/17596 showed up as a "first post" review. I found the animation far more distracting than helpful, so I downvoted (disagreeing, apparently, with fifteen folks who think it's the cat's meow). Review audit failed.


17

Bad robo audits can be frustrating, but they don't really do much, apart from make you wish the robo auditor had a neck you could squeeze. The criteria for how it chooses the "right" choice is explained here and is clearly prone to occasional errors. (If it weren't, why would we need reviewers?) It is possible to get an automatic review ban for failing ...


16

Just to get this question off the unasnwered list, here's the explanation (thanks to YuiTo Cheng, Xander Henderson, jgon and other commenters for the help). It turns out that the poster of the answers had been posting a large number of word-for-word identical answers on similar reference-request questions. The link contains a referral, making it seem quite ...


14

No, you did right. That's not an answer in any way, and voting to delete it is the correct action. The poor audit system was misled by the post having a score of +5. Since it doesn't know any mathematics, the only criterion it has to pick posts for audits is the vote tally. Sometimes that leads to wrong-headed audits. But that's at least as much an issue ...


14

I'd say the culprit is that last sentence: This much anticipated second edition of the most successful calculus text published in the last two decades retains the best of the first edition while introducing important advances and refinements. That just reeks of advertisement. It says absolutely nothing of content about the book itself, and sounds like it ...


12

The first time I got an audit, I thought it was a good idea. Well, not anymore. I've failed some when we changed the policy, initiated by - I believe - this topic. Since the new "close" reason was included, I go for it almost on every question that was nominated for closing and lacks any context or effort (i.e., copy/paste questions). I myself nominate such ...


8

This question post is a horrible "exemplar" of a post that should be reopened, according to a "reopen review queue audit." In fact, the question should be put on hold, so the asker can improve it, and perhaps, and only then, reopened. Including it as an exemplar of a post that users should reopen teaches users to reopen very poor posts, which is ...


8

Because sometimes there is a bigger pattern that regular users don't see where certain websites, books, or otherwise commercial venues post their links here. What might seem to you as a single post with a valid link can easily be considered spam when zooming out. Unfortunately, regular users don't have these tools to zoom out (except long-term users with ...


7

I failed a First Post with this question for one of two reasons. I noticed two things at first glance: There was a mix of unTeXified and TeXified variables. The post mentioned that the numbers could be "very large," but didn't specify how large they could be, nor give much other context aside from "it's for a computer program." What I intended to do (in ...


7

I just "failed" a reopen review audit. My philosophy is that the principle of res judicata applies to all reopen requests: that is, I will automatically reject any request to reopen a question that has not been edited since it was closed, unless strong reasons to reopen are given in the comments. The audit I failed showed no edits since closure and no ...


7

I rarely review, but I thought I'd give it a try, and almost immediately failed an audit. I was presented with a very poor answer in the “late answers” queue. I opened the thread to which it was attached. I saw that the answer I was reviewing had been deleted several weeks ago, so I clicked the “no action necessary” button, and got this obnoxious response: ...


7

Probability and expectancy problem This is supposed to be a "reopen queue audit question" and to "pass" the audit, one is supposed to vote to reopen. This is a problem statement question and deserves to be downvoted and closed, and not reopened!


6

https://math.stackexchange.com/review/close/1056774 The entire question reads: Are there any necessary or sufficient condition for when in a general convex hexagon, the lines formed by joining the midpoints of opposite sides are concurrent (intersect in a common point)? This question lacks context. I can see that it might be interesting, but it appears ...


6

I failed this one. After the fact, I voted to close it and it has since been closed. https://math.stackexchange.com/review/close/246038 It has no context or details. I hope the fact that it is now closed removes it from the review audit.


6

Yesterday I failed this Review audit, and when I posted an answer in the Reopen/Undelete thread, another user reported failing two similar audits, and someone else later failed another one. That same person failed another one of the same type less than 6 hours later. The number of such posts by the same user (who also had a question deleted on MO, though I ...


6

The question is "missing context," as such it can be voted to be closed within the policies of the site (even if not everybody agrees with this policy). However, sometimes question that are interesting or unusual can be well received even without context. Abstractly, not few are of the opinion that unusually positive aspects in a question can compensate ...


6

Your edit nails it. The post had a spam flag on it that was handled as helpful, and thus the audit system thought that the post was spam (deleted post with a valid spam flag = BAD!). Although the spam flag on the original version was not without merit, I have cleared the spam flag from the post (it caused three audit failures altogether). That had the side ...


5

https://math.stackexchange.com/review/close/1015074 This question is a fairly straight-forward "problem statement question" that I voted to close as "Lacking Context." I think that the level of the material (advanced undergraduate or introductory graduate level complex analysis) coupled with the (non-obvious) difficulty of the problem earned it several ...


5

I failed this audit because I wanted it add a comment. Not that I added a bad comment. For all any computer might know I wanted to say this problem is the best research direction for mathematics since the Langland's program. Que sera sera.


5

I failed this one, ironically because I put too much effort into it. It was presented as a first post with 0 votes, on a question that had been answered 10 days ago. I navigated to the question and saw it had good answers v similar to the one I was reviewing so tried to add a comment to say it had already been answered => FAIL. (What I should have spotted ...


5

https://math.stackexchange.com/review/close/1076507 The entire question reads: I have been stuck on this problem for hours and have absolutely no clue how to go about it. Any help would be amazing. The question itself is in the title, and is a pretty standard combinatorics question. I honestly don't understand how the question garnered five upvotes in ...


5

Black holes and the Schwartzschild solution This Question turned up in my Close Vote review (as an audit). Because the Question garnered five upvotes, the system considers it a model of something that ought not be closed. But despite the OP's declaration, "This is probably more a mathematical problem as far as I can see...", it was cross-posted to Physics....


5

I got this one: https://math.stackexchange.com/review/close/1194064 I passed it by leaving it open, but it seems not nearly clear-cut enough to qualify as a good review audit. The asker has not provided much in the way of evidence of effort. I also floated this in a discrete Meta question, before posting here.


5

Are there any properties of sup? The question title is not informative, and suggests a very broad question (rather than the fairly focused question which is actually presented). The question itself reads: Can I say: $$\sup |f(x)-h(x)+g(x)-g(x)| = \sup|f(x)-g(x)|+ \sup|g(x)-h(x)|$$ I can't seem to find any properties of $\sup$ , so i am wondering ...


4

https://math.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts/174827 I failed this audit, because I tried to mark it as a duplicate. The audit said it has been asked (I think) 1 hour ago and I was absolutely sure, that I have read exactly the same question a few days ago. However, I had read exactly this question before, because that first post was a fake of the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible