Timeline for Please make the flag response UI consistent, and train moderators
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 12, 2011 at 12:09 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @benjol correct, operative word being "try". So long as I can squint my eyes and see sort of where the flagger was coming from with their flag, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But if I can't see in any way, shape, or form how that flag is possibly correct, then I'll decline it. | |
| Sep 12, 2011 at 12:00 | comment | added | Benjol | "Try to err on the side of clearing as 'helpful' when the user is trying to be genuinely helpful, even if you don’t ultimately agree with the flag." | |
| Sep 12, 2011 at 0:02 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | that's not at all what I said or meant; let me quote from the above post: If you feel strongly a flag should be declined, decline it. | |
| Sep 12, 2011 at 0:00 | comment | added | Aarobot | So now flags are supposed to be marked helpful simply because somebody was trying to be helpful, even if they're completely off the mark? What exactly is the point of flag weight then, if we're going to accept flags that honestly aren't helpful because by gosh, they had good intentions? Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen such a simple concept so horribly mangled before; please, if you don't want us declining flags, then just get rid of flag weight entirely. The point of that feature was supposed to be to help moderators prioritize flags, not to create a parallel reputation system. | |
| Sep 11, 2011 at 23:42 | history | answered | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 3.0 |