6

There is sometimes confusion over what to flag certain posts as, and when there is no reason to flag them and they are flagged then they should be "declined". But if the post was flagged with the incorrect flag, but there is a correct flag it could be flagged with. Then the message should not just be "declined", but instead something like "this flag was helpful, but please flag as <correctFlagName> next time". And the flag shouldn't be just 'declined' in the system either either, but instead it should be changed to the correct flag so that the post isn't just cleared and then requires reflagging to get back in the queue.

  • Seems to be going over well here. Might be time to post on meta.se soon, but with more than one sentence. – TheWanderer Aug 8 '16 at 15:56
  • 1
    If a post is flagable, but for another reason, I believe in most cases, it is mentioned "helpful". – Jacob Vlijm Aug 8 '16 at 16:44
1

There can not be a valid case when a post is deleted and a flag is declined at the same time.

The whole point of flagging is to draw mod's attention to a post that should be deleted.

It is much less important which flag is used. It is helpful if it was used on a bad post.

It is very unlikely that all users will understand that slight difference between VLQ and NAA. Even mods can't quite agree on that and write a clear rule. There are some opinions, but not a rule.

If the mods are too hard on declining flags, people will stop using them. Mods are trying to get their life easier with the declining, but will get the opposite case.

The best option IMO is to add a post to the LQ review queue if it has been flagged as VLQ or NAA. If finally the post is deleted, then the flag should me marked as helpful. That is a clear and a fair approach.

Blatantly wrong flags can be declined directly.

  • 2
    "The best option IMO is to add a post to the LQ review queue if it has been flagged as VLQ or NAA. If finally the post is deleted, then the flag should me marked as helpful. That is a clear and a fair approach." That is already what happens. Those flags are not even shown to moderators for 15 minutes to give the low quality queue some time to handle them. – Seth Aug 8 '16 at 18:47
  • 2
    15 min is not sufficient. Reviewing is not that fast. – Pilot6 Aug 8 '16 at 18:59
  • They don't leave the queue after 15 minutes, they just get shown to moderators too. – Seth Aug 8 '16 at 19:49
  • And they decline it. If it stayed for an hour, there will be less work for mods and less declines. ;-) – Pilot6 Aug 8 '16 at 19:51
  • 2
    Only because people in the queue tend to be too delete-happy. Sure, moderators don't always get it right, but almost every time I take a look in the queue everyone is just voting to delete everything. That does much more harm than good. If you use less VLQ and more NAA you would have much fewer declines ;) – Seth Aug 8 '16 at 19:53
  • 3
    Trivia: 36% of VLQ and NAA flags raised on this site over the past 90 days have been handled by /review. the median handling time for flags by /review was 331.5 minutes. The median time for moderator-handled NAA/VLQ flags during the same time period was 163 minutes. Generally, I would increase the wait time for flags to enter the mod queue only on sites where /review is handling them relatively quickly (or at least, more quickly than moderators) and there are enough flags to warrant giving the mods extra time to do other things. Right now, too few people actively review here, @Pilot6. – Shog9 Aug 8 '16 at 23:49
  • @redredwine If I delete the post I mark all the flags helpful. The only time I mark NAA helpful and decline VLQ is when I do not delete the post. I can't mark the VLQ helpful for "good intentions" because of the downvote it casts. – Seth Aug 9 '16 at 17:00

You must log in to answer this question.