1
$\begingroup$

I do not understand why some of the flags that I raise, get eventually disputed although the question gets closed or why they do not appear at all in my flags counter. Specifically I have two questions when raising a flag in a question:

  1. If I choose flag > it should be closed for another reason > ..., then I do not get this credited as a helpful flag (in the case of course that the question gets eventually closed). In fact it does not appear at all in my raised flags-counter. It is as if I did not raise the flag at all.
  2. But if instead of choosing that, I choose flag > it is very low quality, then if the question gets closed for example because it is off-topic, my flag counts as disputed.

What should I do?

Thank you.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$
  1. Since you have the 3K privilege, it actually is the case that you never raised the close-flag at all, because once you gain this privilege all "close-flags" are transformed into close votes.

  2. A low-quality flag is disputed as soon as someone is the low quality review queue disagrees with your assessment, or even if the post is edited. This is because low quality flags are meant for posts which are unsalvagable. Not simply wrong, but so completely incoherent that there's no sense to them. An example would be:

    svhlny xuet kmh moxp sfq sqazdlpkzy kcgc cpf bkl snvsjxuqva coth nzzklb bbes ddhsdj kunzicqgtg vhp eeneoes.

    (See a previous discussion of this here.)

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One could also consider flagging cat-on-keyboard posts as spam, but a VLQ flag also seems to be appropriate of course. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel R
    Dec 17, 2014 at 17:33
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Shame. I was hoping the gibberish was actually a ROT13 encryption of something silly and amusing. -1 for not doing that, +1 for the information. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Dec 17, 2014 at 18:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DanielR No, one must not flag them as "spam," and the link does not say you can do this. It says you could flag as "offensive, abusive or hate speech." $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Dec 17, 2014 at 18:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ ... which us somewhat un-intuitive, but the flag description backed it up: "contains content that a reasonable person would deem inappropriate for respectful discourse." It's pretty clear that "svhlny xuet kmh moxp..." does not fit anyone's idea of respectful discourse. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Dec 17, 2014 at 18:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @quid Ah, thanks for the correction. I guess it was unintuitive enough for me to remember it wrong. And I agree the flag description backs it up well. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel R
    Dec 17, 2014 at 20:30
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer and the link! $\endgroup$
    – Jimmy R.
    Dec 18, 2014 at 11:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18782/disputed-flags-despite-closing-question-and-flags-that-are-not-counted
math.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-21
112214
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:GTY76HWQYEO56RH5QAUDEEOCVT2KH453
<urn:uuid:47d47ef4-997f-4a30-a868-43c2dbdab750>
2022-05-23T02:17:47Z
151.101.193.69
text/html
sha1:LIJEWIJ7CWOMW7HFLZJ67XTIWSNSXZAN
<urn:uuid:c08b4e5d-957f-4350-b2e6-d0c0b3f95a9e>
https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18782/disputed-flags-despite-closing-question-and-flags-that-are-not-counted
response
<urn:uuid:90d33540-11ec-4a11-afda-db3d4a0a10e8>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-21
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-6
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/