Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 153 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

With reference to the flags page in moderator (10k) tools.

Here 10k+ users can tend to flags by users.

As a user with a fairly decent flagging history (95%+ helpful) (FYI - ~4% is, IMO, incorrect declines), I rarely get my flags disputed or declined, but yet it still gets reviewed by users who can't do much about it.

I know (well, remember from somewhere) that users agreeing with the flag moves it up in the moderators' queue, but, if that's the case, it might as well start off close to front.

I suggest we change this such that flags of a user with a flag weight [1] above a certain threshold (TBD) don't go through users who can't do much about it.

By "can't do much about it", I don't necessarily mean all non-mods - 20k users can vote to delete downvoted answers, so tending to these don't necessarily require moderator action. Not sure if there are other cases.

Ideally this should reduce the number of posts on that page for non-moderators without affecting the moderators.

< joking-but-not-really >
Ideally the users that now have less things to deal with will end up bored and find their way to the close vote review queue.
< / joking-but-not-really >


[1]: I believe it's still around, just no longer shown

share|improve this question
Flag weight is dead since the last flag system refactor. – Mad Scientist Nov 15 '13 at 18:57
Wait, so flags aren't shown to mods immediately? Or do you just want to make the 10k flags list smaller? – slhck Nov 15 '13 at 18:57
@slhck Yes, make the 10k flags list smaller (given my argument, it shouldn't affect moderators). – Dukeling Nov 15 '13 at 18:58
Number of helpful flags by the flagger has absolutely nothing to do with whether the issue can be handled by the community, so not showing the flags to 10K users just because the person raising the flag usually raises good flags seems silly. – Wooble Nov 15 '13 at 19:01
@Wooble But the probability of the issue not being handleable by the community (i.e. it's helpful) is roughly proportional to the user's flagging history (subject to what I already said in my answer). – Dukeling Nov 15 '13 at 19:18
Flag weight, as people know the term, is 100% completely dead. It might still be around (as in physically still in the database), but it is no longer used. A new metric ranks flags in the queue now. – psubsee2003 Nov 15 '13 at 19:21
@psubsee2003 Well, that just kind of makes my whole request fall apart. – Dukeling Nov 15 '13 at 19:27
My flagging history is worse because I am quick to flag potentially controversial/debatable questions. Does this disqualify me? – Emrakul Nov 16 '13 at 8:44
@Emrakul Yes. There are only a few moderators, but plenty of 10k+ users, so having the 10k+ users tend to flags which are more likely to be declined / disputed (which they can do themselves) makes sense. – Dukeling Nov 16 '13 at 11:34

I suggest we change this such that flags of a user with a flag weight [1] above a certain threshold (TBD) don't go through users who can't do much about it.

You mean the 10k users? Why can't they do much about it? The flags that get escalated to 10k are the spam, not an answer, and very low quality flags.

Spam flags can be piled on (6 flags=delete) by all, or deleted by 20ks.

The other two flags usually entail a downvote1 from 10ks, and a delete vote from 20ks. Flags can be piled on, but as you note, that's not too important. I believe that this raises the post in the queue of the 20k users so that they can act on it, though I'm not certain.

However, it isn't totally useless to show answer flags to 10k users. It's not true that you don't have the tools to help handle these; you actually do: The comment box (and the downvote button). Spend the time to let the user know why the answer is unacceptable.

While this probably doesn't happen as much on SO, I'm more comfortable deleting answers which have been commented on on the sites I moderate. If there isn't a comment, I write one (or use an autocomment). It's pretty helpful of users if they comment on such posts.

As for these flags going to the 10k/20k queues, this is not peer review. The 10k/20k queue is intended to be the final destination for these flags, with 10k users closing and deleting questions, and 20k user deleting answers. Ever since the close flags were moved to the close vote queue the 10k queue has become less productive for 10ks, but 10ks can still partially handle these via comments. And 20ks are the ones who are supposed to fully handle these in the form of deletions.

1. This is especially useful for upvoted NAAs, 20ks cannot vote to delete unless the score is negative.

share|improve this answer
I agree that "it isn't totally useless", but I also think that it isn't totally productive either (productivity isn't about "but they do do something", it's about "they don't do a whole lot", or "someone else could be doing it better / faster"). "If there isn't a comment, I write one" - if most who can delete does this (and downvotes to get posts to negative score), what's the point of 10k users' involvement? I thought spam flags aren't publicly visible (not seeing any on SO right now). I'd like to know how many users actually downvote and/or comment from that page (I suspect not many do). – Dukeling Nov 15 '13 at 20:26
@Dukeling Because there are many flags and the mods already have a lot to handle. What would be nice is if 6 NAA/VLQ flags also induce deletion, thereby making it easier for 10ks to delete the post. – Manishearth Nov 15 '13 at 20:30
I guess now I'm tending towards "don't show downvoted flagged answers to 10k-20k users" (only to 20k+). – Dukeling Nov 15 '13 at 20:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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