I guess I'm not persuaded by the premise of this. The premise seems to be that answers we're currently flagging as VLQ could be saved if they just went into a "help & improve" queue. Or, to state it more constructively: I think it'd help if you presented data to show how this would help.

When we have a terrible, very-low-quality answer, it seems like the right thing to do is to delete it. If you can see how to craft a good new answer from scratch, starting from nothing, then post it in the answer box.

And philosophically, if someone puts so little effort into their answer that it deserves a VLQ flag, then I have zero motivation to rescue their answer for them. I'm fine with helping and improving answers where the answerer has put in 80% of the work, and needs help for the remaining 20%. But if the answer has put in 0% of the work, and reviewers are supposed to put in 100% of the work, then I don't think that's a reasonable thing to ask reviewers to do. In my experience, usually when you've got a VLQ answer, turning that into a good answer is no easier than writing a good answer from scratch.

Let me comment on a few other issues raised in the post:

• You asked what the difference between VLQ and NAA flags is. There is a difference. NAA is for answers that don't even try to answer the question. If you've got an answer that is trying to answer the question but is total garbage, you need to use VLQ, not NAA. VLQ shouldn't be used to flag answers that are merely wrong, but if it's got severe problems that can't be rescued through editing, then a VLQ flag can potentially be appropriate. For instance, I've seen answers where they are only one sentence long, the answerer thinks they're trying to answer the question, but the reasoning is gibberish or reflects a fundamental irreparable confusion. For some such answers, a VLQ flag is appropriate, as a way to get enough 10K users to take a look and vote to delete.

  So, when you say that anything currently flagged with VLQ could instead just be flagged with NAA, that's simply not correct. In my experience, many of those NAA flags will be rejected.

• I'm concerned whether flagging "needs improvement" will be effective. It's a one-bit signal, but doesn't indicate what specifically needs to be improved or how to do it. It's not actionable. It's just a flag saying "this sucks" but without explaining exactly how it could be better. I'm not opposed to it, I'm just not sure whether it's going to work well enough in practice to justify the development effort.

I'm not persuaded that this is an improvement, but explaining why requires an answer of some length. This proposal conflates two or three independent proposals:

• Removing the VLQ flag.

• Introducing the "needs improvement" flag and a "help and improvement" queue.

• Separating out queues based upon reviewing criteria.

Each of those has its own pros and cons. Bundling them all together makes it hard to comment on your proposal, but I'll try.

"Needs improvement" flag

Let me give you some common-sense advice that eliminates the need for a "needs improvement" flag:

If you see an answer that needs severe editing: edit it.

Don't be lazy. Flagging it for someone else to edit is not helpful. There's nothing preventing you from editing it yourself. Anything the reviewer can do, you can do.

Philosophically, flags are for exceptional situations that the flagger can't handle on their own and that needs help from someone with more privileges. "Needs severe editing" doesn't meet any of those criteria. It's not exceptional -- I see all too many answers that this could be applied to. It's not a situation that the flagger can't handle on their own: anything a reviewer could do, the flagger could do.

Pragmatically, "needs severe editing" is not a situation that is useful to flag. The hard part is not identifying such answers; I run into plenty of them every day. The hard part is finding enough time to edit everything that could benefit from editing. Flagging as "needs improvement" isn't helpful. Flagging effectively says "This answer could be improved, but I can't be bothered to do it; let's create work for someone else".

Also, I'm concerned that flagging "needs improvement" is a one-bit signal, but it doesn't indicate what specifically needs to be improved or how to do it. It's not actionable. It's just a flag saying "this sucks" but without explaining exactly how it could be better.

You could also run into cultural issues on some sites. Some sites discourage heavy edits from third parties. I have a mental list of sites where I've tried making edits to improve answers and discovered that such edits are unwelcome -- and I'm not even talking about severe edits at the level you seem to be contemplating.

Finally, I expect that on larger sites the "help and improvement" queue will be one that might grow unceasingly and never get emptied. There's a boatload of answers that "need improvement", but I'm not persuaded there's enough capacity among reviewer-editors to fix all of them or even a majority of them.

Removing the VLQ flag

The premise seems to be that answers we're currently flagging as VLQ could be either flagged as NAA or could be saved if they just went into a "help & improve" queue. I'm not persuaded by this premise. Or, to state it more constructively: I think it'd help if you presented data to show how this would help.

When we have a terrible, very-low-quality answer, it seems like the right thing to do is to delete it. If you can see how to craft a good new answer from scratch, starting from nothing, then post it as a new answer.

And philosophically, if an answerer puts so little effort into their answer that it deserves a VLQ flag, then I have zero motivation to rescue their answer for them. I'm fine with helping and improving answers where the answerer has put in 80% of the work and has some good stuff, but needs help for the remaining 20%. But if the answer has put in 0% of the work, or 5%, and reviewers are supposed to put in 100% of the work, or 95%, then I don't think that's a reasonable thing to ask reviewers to do. In my experience, usually when you've got a VLQ answer, turning that into a good answer is no easier than writing a good answer from scratch.

Misconceptions about VLQ vs NAA

The question seems to imply there's no difference between VLQ and NAA flags. That's not quite right. There is a difference. NAA is for answers that don't even try to answer the question. If you've got an answer that is trying to answer the question but is total garbage, you need to use VLQ, not NAA. VLQ shouldn't be used to flag answers that are merely wrong, but if it's got severe problems that can't be rescued through editing, then a VLQ flag can potentially be appropriate. For instance, I've seen answers where they are only one sentence long, the answerer thinks they're trying to answer the question, but the reasoning is gibberish or reflects a fundamental irreparable confusion. For some such answers, a VLQ flag is appropriate, as a way to get enough 10K users to take a look and vote to delete.

So, when you say that anything currently flagged with VLQ could instead just be flagged with NAA, that's simply not correct. In my experience, many of those NAA flags will be rejected.