Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

In a similar vein, will they show up in my view of posts-to-review? (Reviewable posts? Unsure of term.)

If I can't currently see them, can I? It might be a way to allow people to rescue a borderline post.

share|improve this question
Flagged as what - offensive, spam, low quality...? Or do you perhaps mean closevoted rather than flagged? – Pëkka Jan 2 '12 at 17:20
@TheP.G.RepMiningCo. No, I meant flagged, but close-voted too, sure. – Dave Newton Jan 2 '12 at 19:05
up vote 2 down vote accepted

No, you currently cannot.

If this were implemented, all user information about the flag would have to be stripped from the flag.

It runs somewhat antithetical to the transparency that exists on SO in general (with the exception of voting), so I'm not sure how much of a good idea this is.

I can imagine the influx of questions on meta: "why do I have so many flags on my posts". Combine that with the current disaster that is flag weight and I'd have to say that I don't see how a feature like this could be helpful.

As for the statement:

It might be a way to allow people to rescue a borderline post.

While it might be a way to rescue a borderline post, as there are a number of ways that a borderline post can be saved without a flag:

  • Regular edits can be performed by those that have rep
  • Edits can be suggested by those that do not have enough rep
  • Comments can be left directed at the author of the post asking for clarification/improvement

Flagging these posts in instances where you can do the work is simply adding noise to the system. Furthermore, flagging these for moderator attention (this is not directed at you, but a general statement) is even more egregious, in that it takes a moderator's time away from content that deserves moderator attention.

If a post is flagged, it generally means that there is something wrong with it that can be dealt with in no other way except to flag it.

If it's a borderline post that can be rescued then take the action required to rescue it, do not flag it.

share|improve this answer
How does knowing a post has been flagged violate anonymity? Also, providing an additional way to know a post could use some work does not invalidate other mechanisms. – Dave Newton Jan 2 '12 at 20:15
@DaveNewton You're right, I assumed that the person who flagged would be visible. I've updated my answer accordingly and elaborated on what to do with borderline posts. – casperOne Jan 2 '12 at 20:29
There's already no user information provided about voting; knowing something of mine was flagged is no different. If a flagger chooses not to engage directly in order to maintain anonymity, I don't see why I shouldn't have a mechanism for discovering as much. I agree that other mechanisms may be better, but neither editing nor commenting is anonymous, and leads back to your "reprisal" assumption. – Dave Newton Jan 2 '12 at 20:39
@DaveNewton I apologize, I'm too accustomed to the mod view. =) Voting has a special status, in that the mods can't even see how people vote, the anonymity of a vote on an individual post is sacrosanct, not so with flagging. As for reprisal due to edits or comments, those don't have a direct positive or negative impact on the user, so reprisal should not be sparked as a result of those actions (although I will admit it is possible). – casperOne Jan 2 '12 at 20:59
Oh, didn't know you guys could see flag user info. I dunno, I see (indirect) reprisal when someone explains their vote--sure, technically they "bring it on themselves" by doing (what I consider to be) the right thing. – Dave Newton Jan 2 '12 at 21:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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