Return to Answer

I agree with @Laura and would be happy with her suggestions. Here are three more:

1. Meets standards (or even "Meets minimal requirements" or "basic expectations" if not too long)
2. Should stay
3. Don't remove (or "Don't delete")

Any kind of evaluative word like "good" or "OK" doesn't make intuitive sense when there's plainly incorrect information and a ton of downvotes. Yet the VLQ flag is not for deleting wrong or unpopular answers. I've got my share of declined and disputed flags because of the often blurry line between crappy writing and being reasonably clear in giving false or undesirable answers. I can only imagine how many cases of inappropriate VLQ flags the moderators or high-rep SO users see per day...

Even now that I understand the appropriate use of VLQ flags (I guess...I kinda disagree with the policy TBH), I still feel obligated to explain when I'm voting Looks good on a post that looks bad, but isn't bad in the ways that deserve deletion according to SE standards (e.g.). Yes, commenting is a good thing, and maybe SE wants us to feel that cognitive dissonance that makes conscientious folk like me comment to explain our Looks good votes when the post really doesn't look good or even OK...

But we're not all conscientious folk. We don't all read Meta before diving into the Low Quality Posts review queue. Some of us would probably prefer to choose an inappropriate close reason rather than Looks good or Skip, let alone "waste precious time time dignifying a bad answer with a comment" (written to be extra-haughty; not representative of my attitude toward the job).

Give us something easier to stomach clicking even when a post is wrong or disagreeable – and therefore deserves a downvote, not deletion (or so our policy says, anyway) – and I bet you'll get better reviewing and flagging behavior, more appropriate meta-questions about how to do both, and more attention for those meta-questions.

I agree with @Laura and would be happy with her suggestions. Here are three more:

1. Meets standards (or even "Meets minimal requirements" or "basic expectations" if not too long)
2. Should stay
3. Don't remove (or "Don't delete")

Any kind of evaluative word like "good" or "OK" doesn't make intuitive sense when there's plainly incorrect information and a ton of downvotes. Yet the VLQ flag is not for deleting wrong or unpopular answers. I've got my share of declined and disputed flags because of the often blurry line between crappy writing and being reasonably clear in giving false or undesirable answers. I can only imagine how many cases of inappropriate VLQ flags the moderators or high-rep SO users see per day...

Even now that I understand the appropriate use of VLQ flags (I guess...I kinda disagree with the policy TBH), I still feel obligated to explain when I'm voting Looks good on a post that looks bad, but isn't bad in the ways that deserve deletion according to SE standards (e.g.). Yes, commenting is a good thing, and maybe SE wants us to feel that cognitive dissonance that makes conscientious folk like me comment to explain our Looks good votes when the post really doesn't look good or even OK...

But we're not all conscientious folk. We don't all read Meta before diving into the Low Quality Posts review queue. Some of us would probably prefer to choose an inappropriate close reason rather than Looks good or Skip, let alone "waste precious time time dignifying a bad answer with a comment" (written to be extra-haughty; not representative of my attitude toward the job).

Give us something easier to stomach clicking even when a post is wrong or disagreeable – and therefore deserves a downvote, not deletion (or so our policy says, anyway) – and I bet you'll get better reviewing and flagging behavior, more appropriate meta-questions about how to do both, and more attention for those meta-questions.

I agree with @Laura and would be happy with her suggestions. Here are three more:

1. Meets standards (or even "Meets minimal requirements" or "basic expectations" if not too long)
2. Should stay
3. Don't remove (or "Don't delete")

Any kind of evaluative word like "good" or "OK" doesn't make intuitive sense when there's plainly incorrect information and a ton of downvotes. Yet the VLQ flag is not for deleting wrong or unpopular answers. I've got my share of declined and disputed flags because of the often blurry line between crappy writing and being reasonably clear in giving false or undesirable answers. I can only imagine how many cases of inappropriate VLQ flags the moderators or high-rep SO users see per day...

Even now that I understand the appropriate use of VLQ flags (I guess...I kinda disagree with the policy TBH), I still feel obligated to explain when I'm voting Looks good on a post that looks bad, but isn't bad in the ways that deserve deletion according to SE standards (e.g.). Yes, commenting is a good thing, and maybe SE wants us to feel that cognitive dissonance that makes conscientious folk like me comment to explain our Looks good votes when the post really doesn't look good or even OK...

But we're not all conscientious folk. We don't all read Meta before diving into the Low Quality Posts review queue. Some of us would probably prefer to choose an inappropriate close reason rather than Looks good or Skip, let alone "waste precious time time dignifying a bad answer with a comment" (written to be extra-haughty; not representative of my attitude toward the job).

Give us something easier to stomach clicking even when a post is wrong or disagreeable – and therefore deserves a downvote, not deletion (or so our policy says, anyway) – and I bet you'll get better reviewing and flagging behavior, more appropriate meta-questions about how to do both, and more attention for those meta-questions.

I agree with @Laura and would be happy with her suggestions. Here are three more:

1. Meets standards (or even "Meets minimal requirements" or "basic expectations" if not too long)
2. Should stay
3. Don't remove (or "Don't delete")

Any kind of evaluative word like "good" or "OK" doesn't make intuitive sense when there's plainly incorrect information and a ton of downvotes. Yet the VLQ flag is not for deleting wrong or unpopular answers. I've got my share of declined and disputed flags because of the often blurry line between crappy writing and being reasonably clear in giving false or undesirable answers. I can only imagine how many cases of inappropriate VLQ flags the moderators or high-rep SO users see per day...

Even now that I understand the appropriate use of VLQ flags (I guess...I kinda disagree with the policy TBH), I still feel obligated to explain when I'm voting Looks good on a post that looks bad, but isn't bad in the ways that deserve deletion according to SE standards (e.g.). Yes, commenting is a good thing, and maybe SE wants us to feel that cognitive dissonance that makes conscientious folk like me comment to explain our Looks good votes when the post really doesn't look good or even OK...

But we're not all conscientious folk. We don't all read Meta before diving into the Low Quality Posts review queue. Some of us would probably prefer to choose an inappropriate close reason rather than Looks good or Skip, let alone "waste precious time time dignifying a bad answer with a comment" (written to be extra-haughty; not representative of my attitude toward the job).

Give us something easier to stomach clicking even when a post is wrong or disagreeable – and therefore deserves a downvote, not deletion (or so our policy says, anyway) – and I bet you'll get better reviewing and flagging behavior, more appropriate meta-questions about how to do both, and more attention for those meta-questions.

I agree with @Laura and would be happy with her suggestions. Here are three more:

1. Meets standards
2. Should stay
3. Don't remove (or "Don't delete")

Any kind of evaluative word like "good" or "OK" doesn't make intuitive sense when there's plainly incorrect information and a ton of downvotes. Yet the VLQ flag is not for deleting wrong or unpopular answers. I've got my share of declined and disputed flags because of the often blurry line between crappy writing and being reasonably clear in giving false or undesirable answers. I can only imagine how many cases of inappropriate VLQ flags the moderators or high-rep SO users see per day...

Even now that I understand the appropriate use of VLQ flags (I guess...I kinda disagree with the policy TBH), I still feel obligated to explain when I'm voting Looks good on a post that looks bad, but isn't bad in the ways that deserve deletion according to SE standards (e.g.). Yes, commenting is a good thing, and maybe SE wants us to feel that cognitive dissonance that makes conscientious folk like me comment to explain our Looks good votes when the post really doesn't look good or even OK...

But we're not all conscientious folk. We don't all read Meta before diving into the Low Quality Posts review queue. Some of us would probably prefer to choose an inappropriate close reason rather than Looks good or Skip, let alone "waste precious time time dignifying a bad answer with a comment" (written to be extra-haughty; not representative of my attitude toward the job).

Give us something easier to stomach clicking even when a post is wrong or disagreeable – and therefore deserves a downvote, not deletion (or so our policy says, anyway) – and I bet you'll get better reviewing and flagging behavior, more appropriate meta-questions about how to do both, and more attention for those meta-questions.

I agree with @Laura and would be happy with her suggestions. Here are three more:

1. Meets standards (or even "Meets minimal requirements" or "basic expectations" if not too long)
2. Should stay
3. Don't remove (or "Don't delete")

Any kind of evaluative word like "good" or "OK" doesn't make intuitive sense when there's plainly incorrect information and a ton of downvotes. Yet the VLQ flag is not for deleting wrong or unpopular answers. I've got my share of declined and disputed flags because of the often blurry line between crappy writing and being reasonably clear in giving false or undesirable answers. I can only imagine how many cases of inappropriate VLQ flags the moderators or high-rep SO users see per day...

Even now that I understand the appropriate use of VLQ flags (I guess...I kinda disagree with the policy TBH), I still feel obligated to explain when I'm voting Looks good on a post that looks bad, but isn't bad in the ways that deserve deletion according to SE standards (e.g.). Yes, commenting is a good thing, and maybe SE wants us to feel that cognitive dissonance that makes conscientious folk like me comment to explain our Looks good votes when the post really doesn't look good or even OK...

But we're not all conscientious folk. We don't all read Meta before diving into the Low Quality Posts review queue. Some of us would probably prefer to choose an inappropriate close reason rather than Looks good or Skip, let alone "waste precious time time dignifying a bad answer with a comment" (written to be extra-haughty; not representative of my attitude toward the job).

Give us something easier to stomach clicking even when a post is wrong or disagreeable – and therefore deserves a downvote, not deletion (or so our policy says, anyway) – and I bet you'll get better reviewing and flagging behavior, more appropriate meta-questions about how to do both, and more attention for those meta-questions.