Return to Answer

Without providing a categorical answer to your question, I share this:

In your user dashboard, on its "Activity" tab, there is a box called "Impact", near the top right corner. It has an item involving "Flags". That's actually a link, leading to the list of flags you submitted.

If you flag something, it shows up on the top of that list with some status indicator; initially, something like "pending".

When a moderator processes the flag, there will be feedback left behind on that flag. Either as "helpful", or, if not deemed helpful / appropriate, then, according to my very positive experience, they will provide you with feedback about why it was deemed that way.

A rule of thumb: AskUbuntu, along with most other (if not all) SE sites, aims to be a practical and satisfactory collection of reliably usable answers.

So when an answer does not address this objective, then it is suspect for attention.

However, there is a concept of a partial answer, which contributes towards the issue to an extent that one can appreciate.

Furthermore, we recognise that people dealing with Linux may face challenges of diverse composition. So to accommodate that, one can recognise that some supplementary information —bound less than 100% strictly to the immediate topic—, may deserve to remain posted; just because of the appreciated potential that it can help out someone who is foraging info to develop a remedy to some weird unique challenge.

Regarding a less than perfect answer getting marked as accepted by the asker: as far as I know, apart from the asker, noone has power over that. It stays like that.

One may exert influence by casting votes.

On StackExchange, sites can determine how answers should be ranked by default; whether an accepted answer with lower vote count should precede answers with non-accepted, but higher upvoted answers.

That is a policy decision, deserving its own meta question; I wouldn't be surprised if it already existed.

It also has to do with solidarity and recognising the human factor in user engagement. If you would get too perfectionist in pursuit of the above objective, then it would impose the requirement on community members to post only 100% perfect answers, which is, depending on the topic of the question, can impose a lot of effort. So in the end, moderation (in which you participate when flagging) involves the judgement of balancing between a satisfactory niveau of answers, and the acknowledgement of the burden that producing those answers imposes on people who provide them.

Though, I would say, there is a confident tendency towards enforcing the quality, the reliability of the content.

You'll get the hang of it the more you engage in it. Though, certain biases might develop. Then we can discuss those, and everything involving moderation, e.g. in the "Raiders of the lost Downboat" chat room.

Without providing a categorical answer to your question, I share this:

In your user dashboard, on its "Activity" tab, there is a box called "Impact", near the top right corner. It has an item involving "Flags". That's actually a link, leading to the list of flags you submitted.

If you flag something, it shows up on the top of that list with some status indicator; initially, something like "pending".

When a moderator evaluates the flag, there will be feedback left behind on that flag. Either as "helpful", or, if not deemed helpful / appropriate, then, according to my very positive experience, they will provide you with feedback about why it was deemed that way.

A rule of thumb: AskUbuntu, along with most other (if not all) SE sites, aims to be a practical and satisfactory collection of reliably usable answers.

So when an answer does not address this objective, then it is suspect for attention.

However, there is a concept of a partial answer, which contributes towards the issue to an extent that one can appreciate.

Furthermore, we recognise that people dealing with Linux may face challenges of diverse composition. So to accommodate that, one can recognise that some supplementary information —bound less than 100% strictly to the immediate topic—, may deserve to remain posted; just because of the appreciated potential that it can help out someone who is foraging info to develop a remedy to some weird unique challenge.

Regarding a less than perfect answer getting marked as accepted by the asker: as far as I know, apart from the asker, noone has power over that. It stays like that.

One may exert influence by casting votes.

On StackExchange, sites (mods?) can decide how answers should be ranked by default; whether an accepted answer with lower vote count should precede non-accepted, but higher upvoted answers.

That is a policy decision, deserving its own meta question; I wouldn't be surprised if it already existed.

It also has to do with solidarity and recognising the human factor in user engagement. If you would get too perfectionist in pursuit of the primary objective, then it would impose the requirement on community members to post only 100% perfect answers, which, depending on the topic of the question, may impose a lot of effort. So in the end, moderation (in which you participate when flagging) involves the judgement of balancing between a satisfactory niveau of answers, and the acknowledgement of the burden that producing those answers imposes on people who provide them.

Though, I would say, there is a confident tendency towards enforcing the quality, the reliability of the content.

You'll get the hang of it the more you participate in it. Though, certain biases might develop. Then we can discuss those, and everything involving moderation, e.g. in the "Raiders of the lost Downboat" chat room.

Without providing a categorical answer to your question, I share this:

In your user dashboard, on its "Activity" tab, there is a box called "Impact", near the top right corner. It has an item involving "Flags". That's actually a link, leading to the list of flags you submitted.

If you flag something, it shows up on the top of that list with some status indicator; initially, something like "pending".

When a moderator processes the flag, there will be feedback left behind on that flag. Either as "helpful", or, if not deemed helpful / appropriate, then, according to my very positive experience, they will provide you with feedback about why it was deemed that way.

A rule of thumb: AskUbuntu, along with most other (if not all) SE sites, aims to be a practical and satisfactory collection of reliably usable answers.

So when an answer does not address this objective, then it is suspect for attention.

However, there is a concept of a partial answer, which contributes towards the issue to an extent that one can appreciate.

It also has to do with solidarity and recognising the human factor in user engagement. If you would get too perfectionist in pursuit of the above objective, then it would impose the requirement on community members to post only 100% perfect answers, which is, depending on the topic of the question, can impose a lot of effort. So in the end, moderation (in which you participate when flagging) involves the judgement of balancing between a satisfactory niveau of answers, and the acknowledgement of the burden that producing those answers imposes on people who provide them.

Though, I would say, there is a confident tendency towards enforcing the quality, the reliability of the content.

You'll get the hang of it the more you engage in it. Though, certain biases might develop. Then we can discuss those, and everything involving moderation, e.g. in the "Raiders of the lost Downboat" chat room.

Without providing a categorical answer to your question, I share this:

In your user dashboard, on its "Activity" tab, there is a box called "Impact", near the top right corner. It has an item involving "Flags". That's actually a link, leading to the list of flags you submitted.

If you flag something, it shows up on the top of that list with some status indicator; initially, something like "pending".

When a moderator processes the flag, there will be feedback left behind on that flag. Either as "helpful", or, if not deemed helpful / appropriate, then, according to my very positive experience, they will provide you with feedback about why it was deemed that way.

A rule of thumb: AskUbuntu, along with most other (if not all) SE sites, aims to be a practical and satisfactory collection of reliably usable answers.

So when an answer does not address this objective, then it is suspect for attention.

However, there is a concept of a partial answer, which contributes towards the issue to an extent that one can appreciate.

Furthermore, we recognise that people dealing with Linux may face challenges of diverse composition. So to accommodate that, one can recognise that some supplementary information —bound less than 100% strictly to the immediate topic—, may deserve to remain posted; just because of the appreciated potential that it can help out someone who is foraging info to develop a remedy to some weird unique challenge.

Regarding a less than perfect answer getting marked as accepted by the asker: as far as I know, apart from the asker, noone has power over that. It stays like that.

One may exert influence by casting votes.

On StackExchange, sites can determine how answers should be ranked by default; whether an accepted answer with lower vote count should precede answers with non-accepted, but higher upvoted answers.

That is a policy decision, deserving its own meta question; I wouldn't be surprised if it already existed.

It also has to do with solidarity and recognising the human factor in user engagement. If you would get too perfectionist in pursuit of the above objective, then it would impose the requirement on community members to post only 100% perfect answers, which is, depending on the topic of the question, can impose a lot of effort. So in the end, moderation (in which you participate when flagging) involves the judgement of balancing between a satisfactory niveau of answers, and the acknowledgement of the burden that producing those answers imposes on people who provide them.

Though, I would say, there is a confident tendency towards enforcing the quality, the reliability of the content.

You'll get the hang of it the more you engage in it. Though, certain biases might develop. Then we can discuss those, and everything involving moderation, e.g. in the "Raiders of the lost Downboat" chat room.

I don't know the categorical answer to your question, but I know this:

In your user dashboard, on its "Activity" tab, there is a box called "Impact", near the top right corner. It has an item involving "Flags". That's actually a link, leading to the list of flags you submitted.

If you flag something, it shows up on the top of that list, initially with some status indicator, like "pending".

When a moderator processes the flag, there will be feedback left behind on that flag. Either as "helpful", or, if not deemed helpful / appropriate, then, according to my very positive experience, they will provide you with feedback about why it was deemed that way.

Without providing a categorical answer to your question, I share this:

In your user dashboard, on its "Activity" tab, there is a box called "Impact", near the top right corner. It has an item involving "Flags". That's actually a link, leading to the list of flags you submitted.

If you flag something, it shows up on the top of that list with some status indicator; initially, something like "pending".

When a moderator processes the flag, there will be feedback left behind on that flag. Either as "helpful", or, if not deemed helpful / appropriate, then, according to my very positive experience, they will provide you with feedback about why it was deemed that way.

A rule of thumb: AskUbuntu, along with most other (if not all) SE sites, aims to be a practical and satisfactory collection of reliably usable answers.

So when an answer does not address this objective, then it is suspect for attention.

However, there is a concept of a partial answer, which contributes towards the issue to an extent that one can appreciate.

It also has to do with solidarity and recognising the human factor in user engagement. If you would get too perfectionist in pursuit of the above objective, then it would impose the requirement on community members to post only 100% perfect answers, which is, depending on the topic of the question, can impose a lot of effort. So in the end, moderation (in which you participate when flagging) involves the judgement of balancing between a satisfactory niveau of answers, and the acknowledgement of the burden that producing those answers imposes on people who provide them.

Though, I would say, there is a confident tendency towards enforcing the quality, the reliability of the content.

You'll get the hang of it the more you engage in it. Though, certain biases might develop. Then we can discuss those, and everything involving moderation, e.g. in the "Raiders of the lost Downboat" chat room.