While review posts in the "low-quality" queue in the new review system, I encountered a short post consisting of a link along with a somewhat terse explanation. Here is the question, but the post has been hidden by the review system.

It was long enough to convince me it didn't belong under "link-only non-spam", and I deemed it looked good. Upon clicking "Looks good" I met the "This post has severe quality issues" warning instructing me it had severe problems and has already been dealt with.

The only problem was the post didn't have any obvious problems (barring my developing sense of acceptable posts.) Certainly it was not off-topic or offensive.

Please, before you mark this question as a duplicate, here's what I want to know: in the situation an "obviously good" post gets this warning, how would I mark it as such? Putting my specific example aside, it seems there should be some means to disagree, or at least see the reason it was put up (I suppose my example might have been especially well-crafted and genuinely useful vendor spam.)

  • I don't have 10k on SO (yet, getting close) and so can't see deleted posts. However, I would vote to close that question as "not constructive", and have just done so... Aug 31, 2012 at 23:30
  • True enough, I agree with the close vote. Still, barring my example I think the question still stands.
    – phs
    Aug 31, 2012 at 23:32
  • Given the number of months between the question and the answer (3), the very short life-time of the answer (27 minutes), it being not much more than a link, and the deleted user account, it probably got deleted as spam. Sep 1, 2012 at 0:22
  • When answers like that are given, I look at the question as well. In this case the question is bad and so the answer is what one could expect :) cv'd the qn btw
    – Jack
    Sep 1, 2012 at 1:03
  • The answer reads like spam to me. I also note that the user who posted the answer has been deleted, so the account probably spammed other questions, too. (Not sure if the last part is related to your question here, but I thought it was interesting to note) Sep 1, 2012 at 5:38