23
Flag, flag, flag, flag, and flag.
If you see something wrong, tell the mods.
If you see your flag declined, you will know that you may be a bit too sensitive.
If you see your flag marked as helpful, you will know that you've done a good thing.
For what it is worth moderators can temporarily ban users from review queues. We have used it a few times ...
20
If you are of the opinion that a vote to close or a review or another action on one of your posts was inappropriate you can signal this to the moderators via a flag, chose "in need of moderator intervention" and explain the issue.
Moderators then can review the situation and, if appropriate, take some action. The action could be, e.g.: talk to the user (...
18
Note: Improve apparently means that you agree with the edit but think it could've been done better.
I've found that the "safest" way of handling review queues is that, whenever you are not exactly sure what is going on, click on the question to view/comment on it in its original form (and not through the review queue). I've been bitten already several ...
16
It happens; the audit system has false positives, partly due to the fact that there is no uniform standard according to which questions get upvoted or closed. So, if your opinion happens to diverge from the majority opinion (precisely, the majority of those who voted on the particular question), you get yelled at. Which isn't pleasant of course, not to ...
16
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 ...
16
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 ...
14
This question seems half-way based on a false premise (although this is quite understandable). Let me try to explain what is happening. I assume we are talking about this review
There are two unrelated things happening that make this confusing.
Some items in the review-queues are audits and just there to test if you are reviewing carefully/correctly. ...
14
What happens if you fail the review audit several times in a row? Do you get suspended from reviewing?
When one fails enough review audits, the system issues an automatic review ban (of length between two and thirty days). I don't know what number or proportion "enough" is, but it's not the crucial point whether these failures are in consecutive audits or ...
13
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 ...
11
You are not alone in getting a bit irritate by these tests, and the wording chosen by SE is typically to the more playful side, which does not go over well with everybody.
However, there is some point in having such tests, as it offers at least something of defense against users blindly and irresponsibly clicking through.
I prefer the occasional test, ...
10
The auditor is a robot who does not follow the nuances of meta.MSE debates, and, I'm afraid, does not even read the FAQ. It uses machine-readable metadata associated with posts (edit/closure/deletion history, votes, etc), hides it from the user being audited, and checks whether the user's reaction aligns with the actual fate of the post.
The particular ...
9
The point of an audit is to make you stop and think. Or to document that you're not doing that.
It made you stop and think. So it did its job just fine.
(I should note that failing an audit on occasion is not a big deal, the issue is when you fail a lot of them.)
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 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!
7
The questions used for review audits are selected automatically, based on some algorithm that among other things incorporates vote tally.
Since the response to PSQ-like questions on this site can be quite erratic, to say the least, and varies wildly from person to person, they cannot really make for good review audits.
On the other hand, there are ample ...
6
It looks like you're in the Low quality posts queue where I understand your concern but what postmortes said in the comments is correct. We're mostly checking for robo-reviewing - people just pushing buttons without thinking about the correct response - and so we don't have much concern for these being easily recognized.
As a note, we've recently split the ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible