Now that question downvotes are free, why do we need a flag? Should 'low quality' processing be simply triggered by a sufficiency of negativity? If you think a question is low quality, downvote it. If the score reaches, oh, -2 or -3, set loose the dogs of raw.
What is meta?
- Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
- The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
- Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates
I see a fairly large number of low quality questions that I flag and which are closed by a moderator, that never receive more than one downvote -- mine, right before I flag.
It's not a bad thought to have a flag automatically raised when a question goes sufficiently negative, and I agree that more downvoting and maybe a pamphleting campaign about same would be good for the site. I just don't think that the flag should be removed. Supplemented, maybe; eliminated, absolutely not.
Also, the value of "sufficiently" would have to be pretty negative -- I'd say -6 at the absolute maximum, probably more like -8. Voting is supposed to reflect the quality of the post, of course, but people vote for all kinds of reasons, and lots of unwarranted automatic flags sounds like a great way to frustrate the moderators.
While generally low quality questions should be edited, some of them are too unclear for anyone to edit. Those who don't have the ability to close, need to have a way of flagging them for attention. The text at the end of the explanatory sentence for low quality is
Of course only a moderator could do that.
While I haven't used the reason a lot, since I usually edit those questions, I have had to use it a few times. For answers you have the 'Not An Answer' flag reason, but we don't have a 'Not a Real Question' flag reason, it's only a close reason.
I was going to pipe up and say that while I'm unlikely to ever use "low quality" flags ever again, having been burned repeatedly, the flag should exist.
Then, Lance Roberts had some exchanges in comments which (completely in a direction that he didn't intend) changed my perspective.
The zealots feed on the ability to exhibit altruism. The false-altruism is counter-productive because flaggers are smacked down as "wrong" (which may be an additional ego boost to the zealots). And the user never learns that there are consequences to low quality posts in the form of their brain-child being obliterated, so they never learn to formulate at least mediocre posts.
So, my final answer is this: Obliterate the flag. This kills or at least hampers the false-altruism of the zealots. If the zealots want lost causes to save, they have to put in the legwork. Other innocent users don't get burned by flagging things low-quality and being smacked down for it (by the zealots). Users supplying crappy posts don't benefit from the junction of crap with zealots, so maybe the users figure out how to create more useful posts.
Obliterate the flag, network-wide. Disarm the zealots, please.