**Hypothesis**

Stackoverflow contains some automated review auditing logic. The goal is to ensure that reviewers are paying attention and not blindly accepting content without critical scrutiny.

The logic implemented to reach this goal is flawed however, because it incorrectly identifies favorable reviewer performance as unfavorable in situations when the reviewer has a relatively high accept/reject ratio.

**Problem**

A reviewer with more than zero successful rejections of vandalism (where success is defined as receiving a **'congratulations, you passed the test'** message) is exhibiting favorable reviewer performance.

However, it is possible to have more than zero successful rejections of vandalism while still getting suspended from doing reviews, because the review auditing logic appears to place **inappropriate importance on the accept/reject ratio**.

If a reviewer exhibiting favorable reviewer performance **chooses to skip (instead of reject) questionable content**, this reviewer will get a higher accept/reject ratio, and consequently run the risk of being negatively affected by this logic flaw.

**Steps to reproduce**

* begin moderation on one or more review items
* successfully reject one or more vandalism and defacement posts (questionable content)
* repeat the previous two steps for span of (??) days
* at a later time, modify your review strategy to "Skip" instead of "Reject" questionable content
* accept all content that appears credible, and skip all questionable content
* repeat using the new modified review strategy for a span of (??) days
* accept a post that is borderline acceptable (e.g., the content is not clearly vandalism, but instead appears to be a clarification or attempt to comment or reply to an existing post)
* the outcome will be a suspension from review for (??) days (see included image below)

![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qTO5c.png)

**Conclusion**

If the above hypothesis is correct, the review auditing logic inappropriately assumes that a high accept/reject ratio reflects an uncritical review of content. Based on the facts and background provided in this example, that assumption seems flawed.

**Proposed solution**

Either remove the ability to "Skip" questionable content, thus forcing the reviewer to maintain a certain accept/reject ratio that is consistent with expectations, OR re-calibrate the way accept/reject ratio is used to determine unacceptable reviewer performance.