4

I am currently at around 7.8k reputation points, which means I have access to all standard review queues, including the "Low Quality" queue.

Now when I see a post that does not meet the site's standards and flag it e.g. as "not an answer" or "very low quality", does that flag only put the post into the appropriate review queue without further action?
Or does it rather also apply the first deletion review vote, as I have the needed permissions to do so?

If a flag has less weight than a review action, can I access and review it from the queue later after having it flagged, or will it be hidden for me then?

  • 1
    Don't think so (ones I have flagged don't seem to show in the actions history thing of my user profile) – Wilf Oct 21 '15 at 22:29
  • Then this should be a feature-request once it's confirmed, don't you agree? – Byte Commander Oct 22 '15 at 12:11
2

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.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .