@XanderHenderson Heart skipped a beat there with the phrase "President resigning" but I gather it's not the one some people want to resign :) Is it a big news item?
^^^ Angry face was about the request for someone to do a problem list for the OP. Fine by me if they chose to delete it.
I'm also frustrated by the upvotes gifted to posts like this, which need to be closed more quickly, due to opportunistic answerers.
@XanderHenderson I rarely fail the close-queue audits, but it really does irk me that on any given day, at least for of the posts I review are "fake posts, already closed, for the sake of auditing me. At best then, I am limited not to twenty reviews of legitimate posts awaiting review, but at most 16. I see this as problematic.
Perhaps audits ought not to be deducted from the number of reviews one can perform on honest posts needing review/per day? @AlexanderGruber Feel free to chime in, and you too, @JyrkiLahtonen!
@MartinSleziak In my last two comments, I expressed a concern. I will see what I can find on meta.se, but if you've encountered this concern expressed on this site, or meta.se, please feel free to suggest. I'm not always terribly successful in searching meta.se posts :(
^^^Any ideas or suggestions in my searching, MartinS, will be most welcome. Also, @MartinSleziak if you think my comments here would be best moved to math meta chat, I'd be happy to do so.
@MartinSleziak Thanks you! That helps a lot. I think my biggest concern is that I've noticed a correlation with failed audits, and being presented with more audits, which might explain why some users accumulate "review scores" per day that sometime exceeds the number of real questions in need of review that day, allowing them to, for the record, look like power reviewers. But I appreciate your help here!
Reading what is written in the answer and comment, there are two separate things: 1. Should the review audit count towards badges and personal stats? 2. Should review audits decrease the available number of daily reviews?
My only motive, e.g., in the close review queue, is to make an impact on addressing the increasing number of posts in need of reviewing, and I think that impact is lessened every time I get an audit.
@AlexanderGruber I've advocated before, with quid, that the review queues (at least when examining history) need to have a mechanism for users to be able to flag (e.g., suggested edits that vandalize/absurd reviews) by community users, to alert to abuses in reviewing. I think this would be far more effective that the questionable algorithm for selecting audits. Review audits for suggested edits are obvious; not so in other queues, where a highly upvoted PSQ which previously received no downvotes...
...might require the audited reviewer to "reopen" or click "looks okay" just to pass the audit.
@amWhy re: 1st sentence, can you just flag the post the review was on? we would see that.
also, i should mention that 99% of the time false failures of review audits have no material effect beyond being an annoyance. review bans are mostly handled manually by the mods (mostly by me, actually) and rarely does review audit failure enter into the calculation there.
@AlexanderGruber It takes a lot more effort to do that, and I don't think reviews actions show up on the post that was reviewed (e.g., suggested edits don't show up). I have clicked on "history", then click on the questionable review, pasted in a flag for moderator attention after clicking on the question, but it can take a while. And I don't fail enough to every be concerned. The concern I expressed above is that there are some users who fail audits, to get more audits, to build their audit counts
...in rarer queues. And I want to be able to use all 20 allotted reviews on real questions currently being reviewed and not waste them on fluff.
@AlexanderGruber Interestingly, I've never encountered a review audit in matheducators.se, but I suspect that's because it's a beta site at this point.
there's a lot i would change about the review system, really. The main problem is that it relies too much on human labor, which does not appear to be scalable to the current PSQ volume, particularly if what you want is for bad questions to be quickly closed (hence the need for this room)
we need triage with a decent set of filters if we don't want 500+ queues all the time
