What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 150 Stack Exchange communities.

Today, I was reviewing a first post. In the review page, I got an answer with no username. So I thought the user may have deleted his account. The answer was great, but when I went to see the previous answers to that question, I saw an exact same answer by an old member. I thought the new user has copy pasted the answer. So, I tried to flag the answer and I got this in the review page.

STOP! Look and Listen. This was an audit, designed to see if you were paying attention. You didn't pass. Your review was inappropriate. This was a high quality post and you should have considered leaving it as-is or even upvoting.

Don't worry, we've already handled this post appropriately – but please take a minute to look it over closely, keeping in mind the guidance above.

I understand it was for the purpose of auditing, but anyone would think that as a spam. What's the purpose of this kind of auditing?

share|improve this question
6  
Something something audits suck. Anyway, got a link to the answer? – BoltClock's a Unicorn Jul 30 '13 at 6:32
    
@Bolt here is the review and the answer itself - no duplicate, just highly upvoted fair answer. – Shadow Wizard Jul 30 '13 at 6:36
    
@BoltClock'saUnicorn, answer was great. It was not a first post at all. The audit was judging me with that good answer. I went to that question and saw that there is an exact answer to that question by an old member. In the review page, there was no user name. So, I tried to flag the answer. I mean this kind of auditing is confusing. Am I clear or making things more confusing? – sakibmoon Jul 30 '13 at 6:37
1  
@sakibmoon: You mean it was really that answer by an old member, but simply disguised as a duplicate answer by a new member, right? – BoltClock's a Unicorn Jul 30 '13 at 6:39
    
@ShaWizDowArd, I have probably confused everyone with this question. I am not saying that the answer should have been flagged. The answer was ok, but I believed that, a new user copy pasted the upvoted answer as there was no user name in the review page. So, I tried to flag the answer. – sakibmoon Jul 30 '13 at 6:41
    
@sakibmoon you got me confused, yes. What new user? There is no other answer similar to the answer I linked to, which is the audit source. – Shadow Wizard Jul 30 '13 at 6:42
    
@BoltClock'saUnicorn, yes that's right. Any new reviewer would think that and old reviewer won't have to face that. So, what's the purpose of this kind of reviewing? – sakibmoon Jul 30 '13 at 6:43
4  
@sakibmoon: No idea. I do agree that these audits are confusing. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Jul 30 '13 at 6:45
    
@ShaWizDowArd, edited my question. – sakibmoon Jul 30 '13 at 6:50
    
Assuming you went to the question to see other answers and you saw the same answer by what appears to be other user it usually means you're facing a review audit. Either skip if you're not sure, or upvote in case of highly upvoted answer. – Shadow Wizard Jul 30 '13 at 6:54
2  
@ShaWizDowArd I get that now, but for a new reviewer it would mean an duplicate answer. My point is this kind of auditing is useless. – sakibmoon Jul 30 '13 at 6:58
1  
On the contrary: the audit has taught you something new and that's its purpose after all. Just be more careful next time and generally when reviewing. No harm done. – Shadow Wizard Jul 30 '13 at 7:01
    
Say, does the review audit hide the vote score too? It's been a while since I've encountered a "First Posts" review audit so I don't remember. – Old Checkmark Jul 30 '13 at 7:57
    
Interesting; this is the first audit that I've seen that was for a good post. Is this a recent change? – ChrisForrence Jul 30 '13 at 17:02
    
@ChrisForrence Yes, relatively recent. – michaelb958 Jul 30 '13 at 21:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/190983/confusing-review-audit
meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-48
75062
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ISVTMNVEFGO7ZNWMACLXTG5WDF6KBESB
<urn:uuid:9ec2ab90-9dc7-4fd5-831e-e60deac2bc27>
2015-11-26T07:07:58Z
104.16.117.182
sha1:NBOMWJ3UQJ33ZX4IZ5S2QBGD4WMGNOG7
<urn:uuid:fbc3689b-3fa1-4f26-9723-cf2b9fff2807>
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/190983/confusing-review-audit
response
<urn:uuid:4734d22f-a9fa-4196-85c5-0f7ba94f33e7>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-71-132-137.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-48
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for Nov 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf