By reviewing posts I have found a number of discrepancies in reviews presented by review audits, which will be visible if one pays enough attention.

So if I am sure a review is an audit rather than a real review, I could stop considering what is an appropriate response to this review, and instead start considering, what the audit want me to answer.

Should we be gaming the system by taking this approach instead?

As far as I can tell, the following rules can tell me, what an audit want me to reply:

  • If the post cannot be found through links other than the review links, vote it down.
  • If the post can be found through other links, vote the same as the majority has done.

What are your thoughts on reviewing a post in a way that you don't find appropriate, but which you expect the audit to be satisfied with?

2 Answers 2


There's no benefit to passing an audit, and almost no detriment to failing, so I'm not sure the extra effort is worth the almost non-existant reward...

However, if you see something that should be corrected please do so, if you want to game the audit first that's your prerogative. If you can't correct it yourself please flag it so someone can clean it up.

  • I probably wouldn't put any extra effort into noticing which are audits. But knowing the signals, I certainly can recognize some of them without any effort. How would the system react, if I perform lots of reviews but skip all the audits?
    – kasperd
    Commented Aug 14, 2014 at 14:56
  • 1
    No difference. You have to fail several audits in a short time to have any effect. I'd have to look-up the exact numbers (and verify if I'm allowed to disclose them publicly), but I don't think anyone has ever tripped the Audit Failure system on Server Fault yet, which just bans you from the review queues for a day or so.
    – Chris S
    Commented Aug 14, 2014 at 15:07
  • Apparently it's public knowledge (found on mSE), so here's the details: The 4th failure in 30 days => Ban. The Ban length depends on how many times you've been banned in the last 30 days, 1st ban = 2 day, 2nd = 7 days, 3rd = 30 days. Mods can also ban users manually for 1..30 days.
    – Chris S
    Commented Aug 14, 2014 at 15:16
  • Does this mean that no amount of passed reviews can compensate from a failed review, and skipping a review is effectively the same as passing it?
    – kasperd
    Commented Aug 14, 2014 at 15:20
  • Yes and yes. 15 characters.
    – Chris S
    Commented Aug 14, 2014 at 15:22
  • 3
    Just looked up some of the Audit stats. The system apparently hates you because you get more audits than almost any other regular reviewer. Also, we do have someone who has been banned, so you can't be the first. Sorry.
    – Chris S
    Commented Aug 14, 2014 at 15:27
  • In that case it seems the best choice when one notice an audit is to just skip it.
    – kasperd
    Commented Aug 14, 2014 at 17:03

I don't care what you do with review audits.

Personally if I am suspicious about a review, I'll click through and view the actual Q&A, and then it's usually obvious whether it's a review audit.

Just be absolutely sure you are acting appropriately for real reviews.

  • 3
    Based on the answers from Chris S, it seems the best one can do with audits is to skip them. One don't fail an audit by skipping, and apparently, that is all that counts. And should one occasionally skip a real review by mistake, no harm is done.
    – kasperd
    Commented Aug 16, 2014 at 9:20

You must log in to answer this question.

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