This question is in regards to a Review Audit Question that I ran into.

I am new to the review queue. I am not debating that this review test is a high quality question since it would be answerable, though could lead to some opinionated answers.

I am questioning if this question belongs on ServerFault when instead this question should really be addressed by people who are trained in Security.

It may be that the Security stack site didn't exist when the question was developed, but asking for opinions on how to handle a supposedly ethical hacker gets into legal issues which people who do security for a living are better equipped to handle. The same people may be on both stacks, but that still doesn't change that the best equipped people to handle the question are in the other group.

It was my suggestion via flag that the post be moved to that specific stack. I was marked as failing it for it being a low quality question when that is not what I flagged it for.

1 Answer 1


Even though the question is acceptable here, I think flagging it for migration is a totally valid choice and ideally shouldn't be considered a failed review.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time and won't be the last time that a question chosen by an algorithm wasn't a good choice for a review audit. When SF had a more active community, several active reviewers totally gave up on reviewing because they tired of "failing" arguable audit questions.

You must log in to answer this question.

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