Possible Duplicate:
Should I flag a low quality answer for deletion when reviewing?

In the "Low Quality Posts" section of the new review tool, should I still flag posts that merit flagging?

On the one hand, you might say, these posts have already been flagged, so there's no point in re-flagging. My thinking is that the first flag was automatic and therefore uncertain; and if I notice a post that is clearly wrong (like a comment posted as an answer), I can add value to the moderation system by flagging it as such.

So, am I creating value or useless noise by flagging some auto-flagged low-quality posts?

share|improve this question
add comment

marked as duplicate by animuson, kiamlaluno, gnat, Bo Persson, Matt Aug 25 '12 at 18:14

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

You cannot flag directly from the review queue. The tool encourages us to improve, delete or dismiss posts as okay. To flag a post, you have to open it on a new browser tab. The review tool makes flagging a more "serious" decision. It makes it easier delegate the decision to delete or not to 20k users (who vote to delete instead of recommend deletion), reducing the load on moderators.

However, flagging is still always an option. The point is not if you should flag, but which posts merit flagging. And there isn't a definite, clear answer to that. I usually flag posts I'd like to follow up on, since the system won't let me know which posts I recommended deletion of (I even posted a question related to that). I also flag posts that are clearly spam as such, to get them deleted faster.

share|improve this answer
 
Unless a post actually is spam, it should not be flagged as spam... Please see this link, which is part of the FAQ and currently posted on SO's sidebar: meta.stackoverflow.com/a/58035/187816 –  WendiKidd Aug 25 '12 at 16:26
 
@WendiKidd I know, I'd never flag non-spam content as spam. Edited my answer, I hope it's more clear now. –  bfavaretto Aug 25 '12 at 17:10
 
Thanks for editing! +1 :) –  WendiKidd Aug 25 '12 at 17:13
add comment

It is my understanding that, when posts are automatically sent to the "Low Quality Posts" queue, this is so that they are brought more obviously to the attention of users so that we can make decisions about whether they're actually low quality or not. In essence, the automated machine says "I don't think this is a good post. What do you think?" And humans, being able to understand more about the post than the computer is capable of doing, can now form our own opinions and either flag or not flag accordingly.

So yes, I definitely think you should flag posts you think merit flagging. Being sent to the "Low Quality Posts" queue doesn't generate any action (close, delete, etc.) on the post, and it's unrealistic to expect moderators to go through every single post that's sent to that queue. Flagging exists as a tool so users can help the moderators do their jobs more efficiently. So flag away :)

share|improve this answer
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/144858/on-the-new-review-tool-should-i-still-flag-posts
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-10
66127
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:QSAFBWNJX2PGUFQK274GOGXG3MTNDRPH
<urn:uuid:336f9263-de5e-4fd6-b495-6a6c5cb67984>
2014-03-13T20:31:52Z
198.252.206.140
sha1:YUTJP7IE2UV5NVFDAIX6WGEOYEZ6DBUC
<urn:uuid:1918c1f8-9dbb-4cef-82e9-7c58659385f6>
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/144858/on-the-new-review-tool-should-i-still-flag-posts
response
<urn:uuid:d3aef61d-e927-4c09-ac5a-11f5590a9f5f>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-183-142-35.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-10
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for March 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf