In the Suggested Edits review queue, I am able to recognize the audits a couple of seconds before I see them, simply due to the fact that it takes about five seconds to load the audit and less than a second to load a real review?

Why are these so slow to load? And doesn't it defeat the purpose of audits, when they are so obvious, that one could reject them without even looking? Here is one example of such an audit.

  • 1
    Load immediately here... Maybe your browser has a problem?
    – MichelZ
    Jul 9, 2014 at 9:03
  • 1
    @MichelZ It is only slow the first time a particular review is rendered. That means when I am actually asked to review it, it is slow. But looking at it later, it loads instantly. I don't believe it could be a browser problem, because all other pages on sf loads quickly. It is only audits in the Suggested Edits queue, that are slow to load.
    – kasperd
    Jul 9, 2014 at 9:05
  • 1
    I just experienced this again. Once I realized it was another one of these audits, I started measuring the time. It took another nine seconds before it completed loading. In other words, I knew the review was an audit I am supposed to reject - nine seconds before I even saw the page.
    – kasperd
    Jul 31, 2014 at 18:40

1 Answer 1


The audits do take a little longer to load. If I remember correctly the bad "suggested edit" audits are generated on the fly by inserting junk phrases into otherwise-good posts, and that requires some CPU time to make it happen (in addition to all the other "audit" bookkeeping the system needs to do).
(Good suggested edit audits are pulled from a list of validated edits, and so are faster.)

As for the suggested edit audits being blatantly obvious, the idea is to catch "robo-reviewers" who are just approving every suggested edit they see (or declining them).
It's specifically designed to catch people who are not looking and just clicking the buttons as fast as they can, so it doesn't really matter how blatantly bad the bad ones are - the people who actually notice that they're terrible edits aren't the target of the audit.

It's a flawed system, but it's (marginally) better than nothing.

  • When I said they are obvious, I wasn't referring to the edit itself, but rather to the time it takes to load. These edits are easy to recognize from looking at the edit itself, but they are even easier to recognize from the delay before they show up. (Those who want to go through the reviews without looking could just keep clicking approve until they hit the delay, and then move to reject.)
    – kasperd
    Jul 9, 2014 at 19:16
  • 1
    @kasperd There is a similar delay before "good" audits as well - it's just very slightly shorter. (Though there is some merit to the notion that someone could robo-review until they notice a delay and then actually pay attention to that review. Like I said - it's a flawed system, but it's (marginally) better than nothing...)
    – voretaq7
    Jul 9, 2014 at 19:56
  • I just came across an audit which had chosen an original of such quality that the subject made slightly more sense after the random edits.
    – kasperd
    Sep 26, 2015 at 19:43

You must log in to answer this question.

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