Unfortunately, many property owners in southeastern Mexico do not trust environmental authorities, and the de facto method they use to evaluate the progress in environmental remediation projects is soil smell. This criterion was evaluated to determine if it was reliable to assess soil fertility and toxicity. Three soils (Fluvisol, Gleysol, and Arenosol), were contaminated with 2% medium or heavy crude oil (30.2, 17.1°API, respectively), and treated for 18 months to simulate bioremediation or natural attenuation. Every two months, field capacity, water repellency, hydrocarbon concentration, acute toxicity and soil odor were measured. Odor was measured in controlled conditions with a group of unexperienced panelists. During remediation, the Fluvisol and Gleysol were perceived to have an odor intensity between slight to low, and were considered acceptable. Meanwhile, in the Arenosol, the odor intensity was between low to medium and was considered unacceptable. After treatment, the hydrocarbon concentration was reduced to low levels, very near Mexican norm, and all the soils, including the Arenosol, were perceived to have an intensity between neutral to slightly agreeable, were considered acceptable, and no toxicity was observed in the earthworm bioassay (no false positives). However, in various soil samples from the Fluvisol and Arenosol, important risks were present with respect to field capacity and water repellency. Due to these observations, even though soil smell may be a trustworthy guide to soil toxicity, it does not ensure that the remediated soil’s fertility has been restored.