I just met this review audit:     Wow, that's difficult to miss. You can see the high score of the answer, as well as the author's rep which is higher than 100k.  However, I remember that the review audits in the Close Votes review queue will "anonymize" the vote count and the author so that it can catch robo-reviewers more easily. More specifically, the vote count is replaced with a 0 instead of the original high score, and the user's name and reputation count is replaced so it is more obscure.  Why isn't this the case for the Low Quality Posts review audits? Shouldn't this be applied as well?
114218
Today I came across an OBVIOUSLY good answer in /review. It had 7 upvotes, contained lists, paragraphs of explanation, and well-applied sample code. It was also moderately long. How does a question like this get flagged for review? I don't really know how the algorithm works.   If this is low-quality then I feel bad about all of my answers.  Here's a  if you care to see it in context. It's not really a huge problem (as Bart's comment emphasizes), but this seems like an extreme outlier in every measurable aspect.
99458
I voted to close a question I thought was too localized, and four days later I see that my close vote has apparently been aged away.  The question only has &lt;100 views right now, so based on , I'm assuming the question was reviewed and people opted to leave it open which then kicked off the close vote aging process.  Is there way for me to see which moronsfellow users thought that the question deserved to stay open without tediously clicking through the close vote queue history?    @Dukeling brings up the important question of motivation for this feature that I didn't address.   First and foremost, I just want to be able to check that the vote-aging system is working correctly (and/or that I understand correctly how it's working). I was surprised that my vote had aged out on a little-viewed question, I want to confirm that this is due to it having been reviewed. Secondly I want to make sure the reviewers are working correctly.  The review queues have had occasional issues with reviewer accuracy. If the particular reviewers seem like reliable folks with a history of correct reviews, I'll assume that I was mistaken about the question and revise my thinking about which questions to close.  If they're all robo-reviewers, I'll flag the question or bring it up on meta to see that it's handled correctly. Finally, philosophically I think that this information should be readily available. I could find the reviews by going through the entire review history, so it's not private information. Making public information less accessible can have its uses, but the outcome that's likely to ruffle feathers is already public; if reviewers opt to close a question, their names are prominently attached to it.  This feature would be more important when the review decision is "Leave Open" as in this case (apparently).  This might lead to more whining, but it seems like only a slight risk.
31982
If votes were cast on a post while it was community wiki, and a moderator removes wiki from that post, the votes should count towards reputation again. However, while this is visible in a reputation audit, , and the reputation score needs to be recalculated to reflect the change.  Can someone fix this?
118054
When reviewing on Suggested Edits:   Normal suggested edits are displayed instantly. Review audits take 2 seconds to load (and that's not because of my ISP).   So whenever I see the loading animation and have to wait a bit, I know before even looking at the changes that I can immediately reject the suggested edit.  Now, to quote  ():     There are many ways to identify audits (e.g. click to see the post itself, the user, the vote count, etc.). Almost all of these ways involve having to further investigate the post. By this time, you've already carefully reviewed the post, which is the intent of the queues.   This let us understand that the 2 seconds lag is breaking the game: it allows detection of the audit without careful review of the post, without further investigation.  My feature-request is to have Review audits being served as fast as real suggested edits. To achieve that, you could maybe pre-generate audits?
29300
When a user has the  privilege, they can click on the post score to see the individual counts for upvotes and downvotes.  When a user doesn't have this privilege this functionality isn't present, except after loading newly added answers without refreshing the page. After clicking the "new answers to this question" link the click functionality to view vote counts is added to all posts, though actually clicking on it results in a dialog stating that an error occurred (I'd assume due to not having the required reputation).  May be related to the fix for this previous bug report:
15437
Currently, when a user with less than the required reputation needed to cast a vote on a post attempts to do so, they are shown this message:     Thanks for the feedback! Votes cast by users with less than [x] reputation are recorded, but do not change the publicly displayed score.   While it is technically correct in that their attempted vote is recorded as feedback, it's rather confusing. It implies that the vote is still recorded as...a vote, not as feedback. This can mislead users into thinking that  (also see its duplicates here as well as ), or that such "votes"  (i.e. still a normal vote with the sole exception that it doesn't change the score).  Can we please change this message so that it no longer implies that an actual vote is recorded?  Examples:     Thanks for the feedback! You need at least [x] reputation to [up/down]vote this post.   or:     Thanks for the feedback! You need at least [x] reputation to cast a vote, but your feedback has been recorded.   In my opinion, the "Thanks for the feedback!" text implies to me that the feedback has been submitted and recorded; there's no need to point that out explicitly.
92418
I think there is a small loophole in review audits. It basically ignores closereason filter which I've selected.  For example when I'm selecting filter only duplicates (or any other), the audit will ignore the filter by showing non-related questions to that filter such as too broad, which obviously indicates it is audit without even looking on the question it-self. I haven't tested if the same is happening with tag filter. However I've never seen the review audit which is flagged as duplicate.
42459
As most of us know, there has been a change to the close vote review queue. In that it is only showing the questions with 4 close votes now. However, this question only has 3. .          To answer the comment stating that there is 1 close vote for "off topic" as well as the 3 "too broad" close votes. It only shows 3 here too.           I just voted to close, and refreshed that question page and now it shows 4 close votes. So it only did have 3 close votes.        Any explanation for why this is?
65462
I don't see why users (even those with high rep) should be able to see the number of close-votes for any questions they did not post. I've observed that the mere presence of a close vote can trigger more, and -- quite often -- this biases things in favor of the person who cast the first vote, which makes all the difference in edge cases.  Mind you, it affects me just as much as anybody -- there have definitely been some cases where I would not have voted had I not seen that others were closing a question. I try my best, of course, but we're all human...  The only exception, in my opinion, is when closing as a duplicate. But even then, it doesn't matter how many votes there are -- instead, the site can simply put the top-suggested votes at the top of the list, without mentioning which ones were chosen by people and which ones weren't.  So really, I don't see why the number of close votes should be visible to anyone other than the OP -- and so I'm proposing we remove the display of pending close votes for anyone who doesn't need to see it.
33629
Some people are complaining about the automatically generated audits. They are based on close reasons and apparently are a little controversial :-)          etc   I propose that for "good reviewers" (definition TBD) an extra UI component be added to let the reviewer suggest this as an audit item. Possibly:   Reject and add as audit button (Close and add as audit, etc) checkbox next to Reject, Close, etc checkbox on the Reject reason, Close reason etc dialog (could get messy, and some actions such as Reopen don't involve a subsequent dialog) dialog after rejecting, closing, Recommend Deletion, etc   Further, after passing or failing an audit, we could ask "good reviewers" "was this a good audit"? Bad audits, whether auto-generated or human suggested, could be removed from use if enough "good reviewers" identified them as such.  Now, what's a good reviewer? I don't want to judge only on behaviour in the review queue. I think flagging well is a good sign. So is editing - maybe an edit-related badge? And yes, some number of reviews would be good. Maybe some ratio of pass to fail on review audits. But not JUST what we do in the queues.  (I first suggested this in my answer to  but I'm bringing it up as a feature request of its own and to apply to all the queues.)
39857
A frequent argument brought up in support of voting anonymity is that it can lead to potential grudges. Certainly the review system is of the same nature.  I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that voting is anonymous and reviewing is not. Either both should be public--and this would be fine since public reviewing has been successful--or both should be anonymous--and I assume this would be the desired option since this community holds anonymity so dear.  One could say that voting rates the posts, the actual meat of the site, while reviewing is based on clarifying the purpose of the site and cleaning it up.   answer makes the point that the community can trust that votes are a good measure of quality for the very reason that they do not know who cast them; the mentality that a high-ranking member may have supported something could blur the line between "science" and "politics/religion."  Reviewing, then, can be seen as a judgment of specific members rather than quality of edit/questions, which seems to fall precisely under the "politics/religion" umbrella--the review system is much more vulnerable to grudges due to this.  So let's discuss the differences and the implications of these disjointed anonymity policies.
1372
Users below 15 reputation can't effectively vote. It says:     Votes cast by those with less than 15 reputation are recorded, but do not change the publicly displayed post score   Does it mean that they will take effect after I reach 15 reputation or because they were cast before, they're recorded but ignored?
99918
I just failed , which was shown as being closed as "Not a real question".  Seeing as the vote count was positive, I figured it was an audit, but I selected "Leave Closed" anyways because to me     It's difficult to tell what is being asked here.  This question is ambiguous, vague...   There's no code examples, and the phrasing is clunky at best.  This is my second failed audit in two days for difficult questions (first failed audit is , also now closed), so if I get temporarily suspended, it won't be the end of the world (I'll think of it as a forced vacation).    That said, is there a way to dispute these audits?  Or is posting the audit here sufficient?
43935
I've downvoted several of the answers on these Meta discussions:       Both questions are typical self evaluations, Stack Exchange runs them on all young Beta sites and as you may have noticed they are essentially polls, a series of example questions from the site that we are supposed to vote on.  Today I noticed that almost all of my votes have disappeared on both evaluations, only an upvote remains in the later one. My votes triggered the serial voting script, something that :      Heh, it appears I just serially downvoted you (I downvoted a lot of the answers here), hopefully the script is smart enough to not reverse my votes. Will check back in 24h, and if it does, I'll rant about it on MSO ;)    My voting behaviour on both evaluations was very simple:   I had the evaluation open in the left monitor, Opened all the example questions in their own tab, in the right monitor, Scanned each question quickly, and voted on the Meta answer (most of my votes were downvotes), Repeat for the next one, and so on...   I didn't spend more than a few seconds on any question, as I'm fairly regular on the site and I've already read all of them while casually browsing the site. In fact, if my memory isn't failing me, I had voted (up/down) and/or commented, and/or voted to close on each of the 20 example questions. I might have spend a minute or two re-reading a couple, but I mostly scanned through them. In any case I think my voting pattern is quite normal, and the script should be somehow tweaked to take serial posts, posted by the same user in quick succession, into consideration, especially on Metas.   Since I had anticipated that the script would kick in, I could have tried to fool it by pausing a bit between votes or trying to look for other Meta posts to vote on, in between voting on the evaluation answers. However I'm a very active voter on Meta Workplace, there aren't many posts I haven't already voted on, and the few that I haven't is probably because I neither agree or disagree with (my opinion on them is simply "meh"). In any case I think my voting behaviour was natural, and although the serial voting script is awesome, this time it caught and reversed a perfectly legitimate behaviour.  Animuson, in , mentions that the script isn't really optimal on Area51 as well:      Yes, please implement this on Area 51 proposals too! Oftentimes a single user would suggest a plethora of "example" questions to their own proposal which are just terrible, yet all of everyone's votes get reversed and the question just sits there at 0. I've noticed several times that my votes have gotten reversed.    I haven't noticed it myself, but it certainly seems plausible, especially early in a proposal's life.  Mysticial found a related discussion, , but it's focused on voting patterns on main sites, where reputation is also a factor. I can understand jumping through hoops to satisfy the script on main sites where, unfortunately, there are a lot of people trying to get some cheap rep or "punish" others with their downvotes, but not on Metas, and especially not on these evaluation posts.   Voting fraud is a problem, and more often than not the script works wonderfully, but in my case it was extremely counterproductive. Critical evaluations are essential for a young Beta site, and their answers typically only get a handful of votes. I wonder how many of these votes have silently gone away...  Fix this please.
12407
In the SO Review page , I see the following stats for questions awaiting review:   Close votes:  51.8k (and rising) Suggested edits: 10 (fluctuates, but rarely goes above 20) Everything else: 0 (occasionally see some if you're really lucky)   My question is: Why?  Why are there so many close votes waiting for review? Close votes should expire after four days. And even if there's a good reason for them hanging on longer (ie they're not being viewed), there surely has to be a cut-off eventually after which they can be safely dropped?  And yes, I saw , which is asking basically the same thing. But that was several months ago, and it seems that the queue has hardly moved since then. It seems to me that there's a massive backlog that will never be cleared, and apparently will never expire either. That's not good.  And on the flip side, why are there hardly ever any new user posts or low quality posts to review -- there are always new users posting things, and I recall before this new review system was launched that the list of low quality posts to review was always pretty big.
72101
Few arguments against it:   Pressing the flag button doesn't mean actually submitting it (as in every test/form). There might be an unknown duplicate, if you assume it's the first post (as you were told) it might be worthy to flag it. You might want to look if someone else thought it was duplicate by "making half way" to flagging it.   Why pressing the flag button makes you fail an audit? I think it shouldn't.  Edit:  The implementation difficulty (fake flagging UI) and the tips about how avoid failing (and reviewing!) by skipping the answer adds some insight, but still doesn't answer the question why it's not a valid review.    Moreover, I would like to add one more,  describes a reviewer that failed an audit while trying to flag a question as off topic. The question was clearly off topic, and still after 1300 views no one flagged it.
82940
I went to a Late Answers review queue that had four items in it and started reviewing the first one by editing it into shape rather heavily.   By the time I was done, someone else had reviewed the same post simply by upvoting it, so I only got a "Next" button, not an "I'm done" button. My edit still counted as an edit; but no longer as a review.  Worse still, the other three items were gone from the review queue as well. Curious, I checked the review tab in the profile of the user who had snatched the first review out from under me. Sure enough, he also "reviewed" the other three items, all within a minute, without even fixing obvious typos, simply by upvoting. I had to go through his review list and review every single post again.   Except, of course, my reviews didn't count as reviews anymore. My review count went up by zero. His went up by four&nbsp;&#8212; for fixing exactly nothing in posts that absolutely could use fixing. To add insult to injury, this was on a site where collecting four review points is incredibly hard because the review queues there are pretty much empty 24/7. (Edit: and now that that is also true of SO, we are seeing the same behavior here.)   So what we get are:   Subpar answers that do not get fixed and get upvoted instead and disappear from the radar of the people who are actually capable of and willing to fix them.  Fastest-gun-in-the-West, single-click, faux reviews that count towards rare Gold badges, while elaborate, actual reviews don't.   This is severely broken.  And I can't think of an easy solution that wouldn't break other things.    Simply not letting upvotes count as reviews is not an option (it discourages upvotes not just on crap, but across the board; and some posts really are fine as is and deserve nothing but an upvote). Simply always counting a review as a review, even if someone else is faster to review the same post, introduces review-point inflation and only solves the problem for one faux review, but not for several in a row, as in the scenario above. Simply letting several people review the same item, like with suggested edits, is not really "simply" anymore, and introduces more review-point inflation still. Likewise, allowing people to reject or override other people's reviews as not substantial enough opens all kinds of cans of worms.   And so on and so forth. I really can't think of anything Solomonic. But perhaps someone else can.