-3
$\begingroup$

I flagged this 'question' as not a question

This is not a question, nor feature request, nor anything. This belong on chat.

Expecting it to obviously being deleted, however the flag got declined with the comment

flags should only be used to make moderators aware of content that requires their intervention

which I am pretty sure is wrong no matter how you turn it around.

PS. It's old, but I only noticed now when I was checking up on some other flags. It didn't even occur to me to check up on this flag previously as these types of flags have always been neatly handled by other moderators so far.

$\endgroup$
0
4
$\begingroup$

I was the one who handled this flag. I wasn't sure what you wanted me to do with the question that required a moderator's attention, so I guessed that you were asking me to close the question, and as a result declined the flag.

Closing questions typically isn't something that needs a moderator's intervention, as we have this handy catch-all close reason:

enter image description here

Using this close reason, any user with the close vote privilege (500 reputation) can enter something to describe why a question isn't on-topic, even if it doesn't fit the existing close reasons.


I'm still not totally sure what you were asking me to do. If you're not very clear about what you're looking to see happen, your flag is probably going to be declined (unless it's very, very obvious).

If you wanted content deleted, then please make that explicit. Ideal flags, especially where site precedent doesn't exist, should contain two parts: what should happen, and why it should happen. If you're not sure, that's fine, too - just say you're unsure. If you stick more closely to this, far, far fewer flags will be declined.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Users with <500 rep, who can only flag and not vote to close, don't get the “Other (add a comment…)” option. $\endgroup$ Dec 2 '14 at 6:57
2
$\begingroup$

As you flagged with that text, you probably used a "other (needs ♦ moderator attention)" flag. It was declined because you don't need a moderator to handle that question: 5 users with close vote privileges is enough. And those users cannot see the Other flag, because it's moderator only.

If you think a post should be closed, flag it with one of the other reasons that are not moderator only: unclear, too broad, off-topic, etc. If you flag with those reasons, your post goes to the Close Vote queue on Meta, and users with close vote privileges can review it.

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I went through the other flag reasons and the only other one that would come close is 'spam'. If you have any other suggestions then please do share them, but it would probably have been declined as spam as well. Other is not other without reason. $\endgroup$ Dec 1 '14 at 17:25
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidMulder It's true that none of the flag reasons fit perfectly for that question. But using a Other flag wasn't really necessary in this case. Personally, if I would have flagged it, I would go with "unclear what you are asking", because it doesn't really ask something. $\endgroup$
    – ProgramFOX
    Dec 1 '14 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Regardless, not saying another flag might not have worked as well, but cases where none of the flag reasons work well are exactly the kind of stuff moderators are for, because the community as a whole might have a hard time handling those cases. $\endgroup$ Dec 1 '14 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidMulder and A E: Users with close vote privileges can close questions with another reason than the given ones. Then a comment gets automatically posted and the question gets closed with a custom reason, without it involves moderators. You cannot do this while flagging though, but other people still can while close voting. $\endgroup$
    – ProgramFOX
    Dec 1 '14 at 17:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I know, I guess I could have left a comment explaining the situation and then hoped reviewers would have noticed the comment. Does that change that this is something that is better handled by a moderator than just random reviewers? I don't think so. Reviewers are meant to handle the bulk of the stuff that's 'obvious', the special cases are for moderators. $\endgroup$ Dec 1 '14 at 17:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DavidMulder Why would this be a special case? You want that the question gets closed. A moderator is not really necessary for that purpose, 5 other users can handle that. $\endgroup$
    – ProgramFOX
    Dec 1 '14 at 17:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ... didn't we already agree it was a special case because it didn't fit any of the normal flag/close reasons...? $\endgroup$ Dec 1 '14 at 17:43
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidMulder That doesn't make it a special case because users with close vote privileges have the ability to handle it. Nothing special about it. $\endgroup$
    – ProgramFOX
    Dec 1 '14 at 17:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In that case go and lobby that another flag reason is added called "Other (does not require moderator intervention)". I am more than fine with such proposal, but lacking that one the current generic "Other" is still the way to go. $\endgroup$ Dec 1 '14 at 17:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'd say a simple "off topic" would have sufficed. Or "unclear what you're asking" given that nothing is really being asked. Reasons are always going to be broad. And in this case really anything would do. $\endgroup$
    – Bart
    Dec 1 '14 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidMulder "Other" is not the way to go because moderators aren't needed to close it. If it would be the way to go, your flag wouldn't be declined. $\endgroup$
    – ProgramFOX
    Dec 1 '14 at 17:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm not the one who handled the flag, but I can confirm this would be my reasoning for declining it. $\endgroup$
    – Doorknob
    Dec 1 '14 at 18:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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