28

Okay, so I flagged this question (which has since been removed) as being "Very Low Quality". To me, it seems to be a textbook definition of the criteria for VLQ (it is so poorly written, I don't even know where to begin with trying to edit it), but the flag was declined with the comment

declined - a moderator reviewed your flag, but found no evidence to support it

I must be severely misunderstanding the intended usage of this flag. I don't use it very often (I do flag, I just don't usually pick that one), and I don't want to be using it inappropriately.

So as the title of the question states, what, if not this, qualifies as Very Low Quality?

UPDATE

The question has since been "removed from Stack Overflow for reasons of moderation". So I guess someone else thought it was bad enough to get rid of.

  • 10
    The VLQ flag says This question has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed - Are you using VLQ in error instead of voting to close? Seems to me that you should have flagged that as possibly "Unclear what you're asking" not VLQ. – Taryn Jun 17 '14 at 14:56
  • 3
    @bluefeet To me, that question does indeed have "severe formatting or content problems". Am I taking the meaning of that phrase incorrectly? Perhaps give an example of something that does qualify as VLQ? – Patrick Q Jun 17 '14 at 14:58
  • 3
    To me, that question is unclear not unreadable - there is a question there just one that isn't very good. VLQ should be for items that are unsalvageable from editing. Read this – Taryn Jun 17 '14 at 15:00
  • 1
  • 1
    When in doubt about which flag to use, cast a custom moderator flag, and explain why the post is actively harmful to the site, and needs to be closed or deleted. – Robert Harvey Jun 17 '14 at 15:18
  • 5
    @Yannis The entire thing is incomprehensible. As I said in the question, I have no idea where to begin trying to save that with an edit. Can you tell me definitively what "in these table created and value retrieve from ajax page" means? – Patrick Q Jun 17 '14 at 15:20
  • 4
    @PatrickQ If you don't understand what the question is asking because it's just not clear at all then vote to close it as "unclear what you're asking". Yes, that question is unclear, but it does seem like there's an actual question buried in there somewhere, we just need the OP to spend a bit of time trying to improve it for it to get there. – Servy Jun 17 '14 at 15:24
  • So I'm not understanding why it has been deleted, if it was such a high quality question? Any chance one of you guys can show us what the question actually looked like? – Richard Le Mesurier Jun 18 '14 at 14:58
  • @RichardLeMesurier I wish I had copied the content. But since the consensus seemed to be that it was not worthy of being deleted, I didn't. But there was not a single redeeming aspect of it. I'm not sure if there was even one comprehensible sentence. – Patrick Q Jun 18 '14 at 15:06
  • 1
    Screenshot for us low rep, high value users? – ouflak Jun 18 '14 at 15:58
  • Having viewed the question, it appears (with my generous hat on) the asker didn't grok the purpose of the site, and had outlined what he was doing without actually getting as far as real question. If an intern had said this to me in real life, I would have pulled up a chair and said "show me what you've got"... but since this is StackOverflow, "unclear what you're asking" is all we can do. – Colin Pickard Jun 18 '14 at 16:11
15

VLQ is a bit of a tricky beast. I interpret the flag as "gibberish," and had I been the one who encountered the flag, I probably would have closed this particular question as "unclear what you are asking" (which would have automatically dismissed your moderator flag as helpful).

I think it's important to remember that moderators are here to handle exceptional cases. VLQ should probably only be used on a question when it's something like "Cat Walking on Keyboard," in which case a moderator will not close it; they will simply delete it.

Moderators are strict with flags nowadays, because the way flags are handled influences the review queues. Dismissing a flag as helpful when a close vote or down vote is more appropriate can cause someone to fail a review audit. The occasional declined moderator flag is not that big of a deal; if you have a concern, we'd rather see it than not.

As always, when in doubt about which flag to use, cast a custom moderator flag, and explain why the post is actively harmful to the site, and what action you think we should take. Try reserving your moderator flags for those situations that the community cannot handle itself with close votes, down votes, etc.

  • 3
    As you said, "VLQ is a bit of a tricky beast". I think if we had some examples to point people to it would help (maybe they exist and I haven't found them yet). Here are some examples I gave awhile back in chat when people were confused about VLQ declines. "I like dinosaurs. Do you like dinosaurs? Dinosaurs are fun. Where can I get a dinosaur?". As you can see, I'm not very imaginative. – codeMagic Jun 17 '14 at 15:32
  • The problem that I am seeing is users are using flags incorrectly - VLQ instead of voting to close, "custom" flags for mods to close things instead of voting to close. Now, that we can add custom messages to the decline message, I've been using these to hopefully steer users into using the correct process. I declined the flag but failed to include a note this time - fat-finger. – Taryn Jun 17 '14 at 15:32
  • 1
    I guess some sort of language in the flag description that clearly states that this flag will be sent to moderators and take up their time (just as the 'other' flag does) and that it should only be used in "exceptional cases" would be helpful. – Patrick Q Jun 17 '14 at 15:33
  • 7
    What you are really saying is that don't consider junk like this exceptional. Hmm. – Hans Passant Jun 17 '14 at 15:39
  • 6
    The flag form could definitely stand to be more clear. I thought the "low quality" option sent a post to the low-quality review queue, and only the "needs moderator attention" option sent it to a moderator. – Andrew Medico Jun 17 '14 at 15:41
  • 3
    @AndrewMedico We are able to review all the flags! Well, most - close flags go to the close queue. – Taryn Jun 17 '14 at 15:42
  • 2
    Doesn't the review audit thing go both ways? As the flag has been declined, could this question now in theory appear as an audit with "looks ok" as the "correct" answer? – l4mpi Jun 17 '14 at 20:23
  • 1
    @codeMagic Wouldn't that be "blatantly off-topic"? – starsplusplus Jun 17 '14 at 20:32
  • @starsplusplus probably for the first two but maybe not the second. In my example, it was all one post so I was trying to put together some gibberish (I said I'm not very imaginative :P). My other example was something like, "obnpmeprv vijporev vpijopr". But that is why I thought it would be good if some more creative people added a few quality VLQ examples for us to point the confused masses to. – codeMagic Jun 17 '14 at 20:35
  • 1
    @codeMagic Oh, they are separate examples? I read that all as a single one. But I agree with you it would help to have some examples. – starsplusplus Jun 17 '14 at 20:37
  • Wait… are we talking about the Low Quality queue, the Disputed Low Quality queue, or something else here? – bjb568 Jun 17 '14 at 22:19
  • 2
    @bjb568: disputed low quality queue??? – Qantas 94 Heavy Jun 18 '14 at 5:54
  • @Qantas94Heavy It's some auto mod flag or something. I'm confused because this is talking about moderators, not reviewers. – bjb568 Jun 18 '14 at 6:11
  • 2
    @Qantas94Heavy Its existence is disputed. – Dawood ibn Kareem Jul 16 '14 at 9:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/260812/what-qualifies-as-very-low-quality-if-not-this/260816
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-35
147014
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KAFD3GEIHC2P44RQDS7NLSPIM22THWZO
<urn:uuid:23f6034d-a8b6-453c-bd8a-ea377fdf8653>
2019-08-25T08:00:05Z
151.101.1.69
text/html
sha1:JMTXWAHCOYJL3GC2L4HKB5D5IPZJ53GM
<urn:uuid:a7294761-a696-4791-bd57-779bce2b0ef2>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/260812/what-qualifies-as-very-low-quality-if-not-this/260816
response
<urn:uuid:a3ec6a72-d9fb-4e4a-9d68-c2001300d542>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-35
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-238.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/