Timeline for Proposed improvement to flagging, for answers
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 23, 2017 at 12:36 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
Mar 22, 2012 at 14:41 | comment | added | avpaderno | @waffles Are there any plans to implement points #2, and #6 in other sites too? They could be helpful in other sites too. | |
Mar 20, 2012 at 17:27 | comment | added | Cody Gray | Someone just referred me to this as evidence of how the current system works, specifically point number 3. Am I correct in interpreting that as saying that if I cast a single close vote (not the final) on any question in the flag queue, all pending close flags will be dismissed as valid? Does this also remove it from the queue entirely, even if it has not been closed yet? | |
Dec 9, 2011 at 15:11 | comment | added | jrturton | What happens to flag weight under point 3? If I flag a post, and also vote to close it (presumably this is referring to questions, not answers) I assume there is no increase in flag weight, but if I simply flag and wait for someone else to close vote, what happens? | |
Dec 9, 2011 at 14:57 | history | edited | waffles | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 105 characters in body
|
Dec 9, 2011 at 7:37 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @pro I believe very strongly -- violently, even -- that posts with a score of zero should be eligible for VLQ flags. I agree that posts with a score of 1 or higher shouldn't be. That change has been in for a while now. | |
Dec 9, 2011 at 7:21 | comment | added | NullUserException อ_อ Mod | @JeffAtwood Did you just bump up the threshold to 1, or was it always 1 and waffles posted it wrong? | |
Dec 9, 2011 at 7:03 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
Nov 1, 2011 at 5:42 | comment | added | jscs | Okey-dokey. Guess I was using them wrong. | |
Nov 1, 2011 at 5:38 | comment | added | waffles | If you are trying to escalate closure, you are going to have to leave a comment, simply adding a "vlq" just makes us confused. (I will suppress that other radio when it is alone) .... at the moment it looks like answer flags are not much of a problem ... the most difficult thing in the queue now is all the custom stuff | |
Nov 1, 2011 at 5:33 | comment | added | jscs | I thought these proposals were only for answer flags. I use VLQ semi-frequently on questions that I think are crappy NARQs and don't seem to be reaching "close velocity". Is the new preferred procedure to use the "other" box (which looks strange on its own, BTW) all the time? | |
Nov 1, 2011 at 5:15 | history | answered | waffles | CC BY-SA 3.0 |