Current name and description of the flag:

very low quality

This question has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.

Change the name of the flag to:

unsalvageably bad

If you wish, also change the description to something like:

No number of edits can save this illegible excuse of a post so let's agree to douse it in petrol and set it alight as an example to others.
This is reserved for posts that are beyond meaningful editing.

It's the name of the flag which often creates the confusion for new users. Changing it to what is proposed would take care of that confusion.

Although I am fine with the current description, I think that the proposed description is very provoking and would definitely make sure there is no confusion at all.

This was proposed by Ask Ubuntu Community member and moderator, Oli in this Ask Ubuntu Meta post.

  • 5
    I actually think the general idea isn't a bad one; make it more clear to users what that flag is for. It's not for, "mod, fix this post!", it's for, "mod, this post can't possibly be fixed!" May 21, 2013 at 14:48
  • 1
    Better description: "This question/answer is bad and the author should feel bad." May 21, 2013 at 15:06
  • @AndrewBarber: What happened? This was converted to CW, now its non-CW. (I am guessing you had earlier converted to CW seeing my comment).
    – Aditya
    May 21, 2013 at 15:06
  • Oh... Looks like my flag was handled by another moderator who converted it to non-CW (flag got declined - a moderator reviewed your flag, but found no evidence to support it) - There isn't enough evidence that its not my original idea?
    – Aditya
    May 21, 2013 at 15:10
  • 4
    What about "Beyond Repair"? Less drastic than "Unsalvageably Bad", but not as easily mistaken for "Rather Poor" as VLQ, I think. May 21, 2013 at 15:17
  • 1
    @TinSoldiersAndNixonsComin': "Beyond Repair" looks good as well :)
    – Aditya
    May 21, 2013 at 15:18
  • @Aditya It wasn't me, honest! :) May 21, 2013 at 16:36
  • @AndrewBarber: No problem, but would you have converted it to Community Wiki had you handled my flag (this isn't my idea as I mention at the end and I had flagged it instantly after posting it here - there is further evidence in this comment - the request to convert it to CW has got nothing with DownVotes it has attracted) - if you are satisfied, then please do convert this question to CW :-)
    – Aditya
    May 21, 2013 at 16:59
  • 2
    @Aditya To be honest, I wouldn't be sure what to do in this case. I would have left the flag for another mod to handle. I'm not comfortable reversing anything that was done here. Have an up vote, though! May 21, 2013 at 17:01

1 Answer 1


The inflammatory tone of "Unsalvageably Bad", and especially that of your suggested description text, don't seem appropriate for StackOverflow. It is likely to discourage responsible flaggers from making such flags, and be more likely to be used in flame wars.

It could also serve as an example to community members of the language that's appropriate. If someone sees phrases like "illegible excuse of a post" (even if that is just an exaggerated example) in official StackOverflow messages, it encourages them to make similarly incivil comments on the post.

  • 2
    The problem with the current tone is that people miss the severity and flag up all sorts of nonsense that can be edited just fine. A bit of punch in the title makes people understand we're talking business.
    – Oli
    May 21, 2013 at 14:53
  • 4
    Except you know, being condescending is for people, not Web interfaces. May 21, 2013 at 15:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .