Skip to main content
Ask Ubuntu

Return to Answer

deleted 5 characters in body
Source Link
kos
kos
  • 40.9k
  • 1
  • 23
  • 38

I don't know whether they are "internally" (as per Wilf's comment on the question, for sure they're not marked as such), but I guess no, as flags can be raised by any user, so there should be some type of control on the flag, which I don't think is actually implemented; mostly in my opinion it would go to the detriment of a good review of the post:

  • If an user (with no review queue access) would raise a flag, it'd take X people in the review queue to delete the post;
  • If an user (with review queue access) would raise a flag, it'd take X-1 people in the review queue to delete the post;

So it's a matter of numbers: such a feature would introduce an asimmetry in how posts are deleted, because the number of people needed to delete a post would vary based on the reputation of the user who raised the flag in first place;

In my opinion the point should be how many people are going to put their eyes on the post, not their reputation;

It's not exactly the same, but consider as an equivalent example what happens for suggested edits: it always takes 3 reviews (clicking "Approve") to let a suggested edit through, no matter the reputation of the reviewer.

I think that this gives a clue about the system being inspired to allow changes based on the number of users agreeing on them rather than on the reputation of the user wanting those, which I think it's fair.

I don't know whether they are "internally" (as per Wilf's comment on the question, for sure they're not marked as such), but I guess no, as flags can be raised by any user, so there should be some type of control on the flag, which I don't think is actually implemented; mostly in my opinion it would go to the detriment of a good review of the post:

  • If an user (with no review queue access) would raise a flag, it'd take X people in the review queue to delete the post;
  • If an user (with review queue access) would raise a flag, it'd take X-1 people in the review queue to delete the post;

So it's a matter of numbers: such a feature would introduce an asimmetry in how posts are deleted, because the number of people needed to delete a post would vary based on the reputation of the user who raised the flag in first place;

In my opinion the point should be how many people are going to put their eyes on the post, not their reputation;

It's not exactly the same, but consider as an equivalent example what happens for suggested edits: it always takes 3 reviews (clicking "Approve") to let a suggested edit through, no matter the reputation of the reviewer.

I think that this gives a clue about the system being inspired to allow changes based on the number of users agreeing on them rather than on the reputation of the user wanting those.

I don't know whether they are "internally" (as per Wilf's comment on the question, for sure they're not marked as such), but I guess no, as flags can be raised by any user, so there should be some type of control on the flag, which I don't think is actually implemented; mostly in my opinion it would go to the detriment of a good review of the post:

  • If an user (with no review queue access) would raise a flag, it'd take X people in the review queue to delete the post;
  • If an user (with review queue access) would raise a flag, it'd take X-1 people in the review queue to delete the post;

So it's a matter of numbers: such a feature would introduce an asimmetry in how posts are deleted, because the number of people needed to delete a post would vary based on the reputation of the user who raised the flag in first place;

In my opinion the point should be how many people are going to put their eyes on the post, not their reputation;

It's not exactly the same, but consider as an equivalent example what happens for suggested edits: it always takes 3 reviews (clicking "Approve") to let a suggested edit through, no matter the reputation of the reviewer.

I think this gives a clue about the system being inspired to allow changes based on the number of users agreeing on them rather than on the reputation of the user wanting those, which I think it's fair.

Source Link
kos
kos
  • 40.9k
  • 1
  • 23
  • 38

I don't know whether they are "internally" (as per Wilf's comment on the question, for sure they're not marked as such), but I guess no, as flags can be raised by any user, so there should be some type of control on the flag, which I don't think is actually implemented; mostly in my opinion it would go to the detriment of a good review of the post:

  • If an user (with no review queue access) would raise a flag, it'd take X people in the review queue to delete the post;
  • If an user (with review queue access) would raise a flag, it'd take X-1 people in the review queue to delete the post;

So it's a matter of numbers: such a feature would introduce an asimmetry in how posts are deleted, because the number of people needed to delete a post would vary based on the reputation of the user who raised the flag in first place;

In my opinion the point should be how many people are going to put their eyes on the post, not their reputation;

It's not exactly the same, but consider as an equivalent example what happens for suggested edits: it always takes 3 reviews (clicking "Approve") to let a suggested edit through, no matter the reputation of the reviewer.

I think that this gives a clue about the system being inspired to allow changes based on the number of users agreeing on them rather than on the reputation of the user wanting those.