What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 127 Stack Exchange communities.

I fully understand the purpose of limiting the number of flags a user can raise, and there is a great post here that questions the limit and explains how the value is calculated.

I particularly like that users with a good flagging history are rewarded with a higher limit, and that badges are awarded for this activity. It encourages others to clean up poor content.

I am interested in the thought of removing this limit all together for those of us who have earned the Marshal badge. The current requirements takes a user a fair amount of time to achieve this badge, and earning it shows that one has a good pattern for eying and flagging posts.

The flag limit can be reached relatively easy by good flaggers with a few review runs a day, flagging "I need this too... any update?" posts.

Has there been any thought to this? I'd welcome any discussion and even criticism on this idea.

share|improve this question
1  
I've made a request concerning this as well: Bonus moderation flags for users who have an extremely helpful flag record for the day –  animuson Jun 21 '12 at 21:46
1  
I'd support giving a few more flags to Marshals, but still with a daily limit. Everyone can have a bad day (or two) and run amok, and although getting Marshal is impressive (even in its current form), it says little, if anything, for your flagging pattern a year or two after you got it. –  Yannis Jun 21 '12 at 21:54
25  
To date, 251 users have earned the Marshal badge and there are only 15 moderators. Rather than just swamping us with more flags, I'd rather see users with the Marshal badge be given higher privileges so they can help us deal with the flags already in the moderator dashboard. Does anyone have any ideas on what those folks can help out with? Edit: I just scrolled down the main page to find meta.stackexchange.com/q/137174/1288 –  Bill the Lizard Jun 21 '12 at 21:55
3  
@bill that is an infinitely better idea, imo. –  Andrew's a Unitato Jun 21 '12 at 22:01
    
I go on a flagging spree during my coffee breaks; the limit gives me a tangible target and ensures I end my break in finite time. Hands off my limit! –  Shawn Chin Jun 22 '12 at 9:24
2  
Someone with 51% good flags can (eventually) get the Marshall badge. Do we want someone who is barely right half of the time to have the ability to run amok? –  Al E. Jun 22 '12 at 12:59
1  
@AlEverett I agree, maybe those with the Marshal badge and a high percentage of valid flags get additional privileges. Restrict it to those who have proven the ability to flag correctly. –  bluefeet Jun 22 '12 at 18:05
add comment

1 Answer

I agree with this, if there are some limits that are placed on it.

  • As you said, limit the possible candidates to those with the Marshal badge. If a user has already spent a lot of time flagging, then they have been actively trying to improve and clean-up some of the the junk that get posted.

  • Second, look at the helpful flagging percentage of the candidates to make sure they are qualified. What happens if you have a user with the Marshal badge but 40% helpful percentage...are they a good candidate for this...probably not. But if there were people with a helpful percentage of 90-95%+, they might be better qualified to flag the junk.

I am not sure what the helpful percentage should be but I think it should be on the higher end because it is possible for people to get the marshal badge by flagging a lot of posts with a small percentage of them being helpful.

share|improve this answer
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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