6

I've known that inside the Low-Quality queue, one could be banned due to a single audit failure if the review is "spam" related.

Refer:


But, what if the audit is tricky?

For example here is my case: https://stackoverflow.com/review/low-quality-posts/26001172

The spam pattern post may have a company/product link at the end.

But in this case, it answered the question (itself is kind of off-topic as well), and the link redirects to a public package's document which has the license of MIT.

Maybe it's not on the answer, but is it really spam?

If it's spam, why the similar posts still exist under that question?

It looks tricky enough in my opinion.

Is it acceptable/normal to potentially ban a user from the review with a huge period only for one tricky audit?

4
  • 1
    Inline code formatting is not for emphasis. It is for code. None of the things you've formatted as code in your post are actually code. Commented May 1, 2020 at 4:44
  • 4
    In response to now-deleted comments: Yes, abuse of formatting is a common reason for me (and others) to downvote posts. If you want to emphasize something, use bold or italics. They are the formatting options designed for emphasis. Inline code formatting is for code. Commented May 1, 2020 at 5:43
  • 2
    I absolutely hate using spam as Low Quality Posts review audits. Recommend Deletion is the wrong button to use for spam posts, as that pushes them toward review deletion, which allows the author to undelete the post (which leaves no trace for non-moderators). I usually Skip those and flag them as spam separately, but I know some others who review them as Looks OK to push them away from review deletion and I disagree that they should be penalized.
    – gparyani
    Commented May 1, 2020 at 7:28
  • related: How is this a bad answer?
    – gnat
    Commented May 1, 2020 at 10:21

1 Answer 1

5

I could not find any other failed review audits by you in the last 30 days with my new tool (other than the one you linked), so this is probably a bug and I've lifted the review suspension.

enter image description here

1
  • I think it is a rolling window, so it's in the last "X amount of seconds"
    – Braiam
    Commented May 1, 2020 at 5:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/397113/review-banned-period-doubled-for-one-single-failure-on-a-low-quality-review-whic?noredirect=1
meta.stackoverflow.com
CC-MAIN-2024-33
116031
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:AQ5FKLHYHVEGQI66GUJ2Z5JQ35KKSK6G
<urn:uuid:89870ced-2b47-42ad-85c5-a1c7a7f28823>
2024-08-08T13:41:05Z
104.18.32.7
text/html
sha1:2PASANNZQWOGE42L7NHVC2YKP5GOXSEE
<urn:uuid:b6c9af5a-1b1c-4bc6-95c2-5d7328446656>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/397113/review-banned-period-doubled-for-one-single-failure-on-a-low-quality-review-whic?noredirect=1
response
<urn:uuid:79538770-51af-44d6-a1f7-620e0419f732>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-33
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-90
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/