15

This question already has an answer here:

When handling flags, sometimes I see one for, say, comments that will be obsolete, but aren't yet, or a post that's currently low-quality but I want to give the (new, otherwise-promising) user a little time to fix it before nuking it.1 What happens now is that I just skip past that flag and it continues to hang out in the flag list, cluttering the view, and I may have to skip past it a few times before I stop and ask myself "is it time yet?". Or sometimes I don't look -- I see that the flag count hasn't changed so I think the queue is down to the ones we're waiting on, but what I didn't notice is that someone else handled one of them and meanwhile a new flag came in that I ought to look at.

In cases like this I'd like to be able to defer the flag, to hit a virtual "snooze" button. While in this state the flag disappears from the flag list (perhaps there's a link to get pending ones so it's still findable), and then it comes back just like a new flag at the appointed time. I don't think we need to be able to vary the snooze time; that might be nice, but a simple "ask again tomorrow" would do the trick on the smaller sites where I see flags. (SO might need a different value.)

1 This may seem silly on large, established sites with tons of users coming through, but on smaller betas there can be more of a call to nurture new users.

marked as duplicate by Mad Scientist, Shog9 Jun 12 '13 at 14:46

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • I think the best bet is to leave a comment on that post suggesting the OP improve their question. It'll show up in your flags summary that you've commented against it, so for posts you've done that for you can come back to them later. Also, a Mod commenting on a question should (although not always) discourage other users from jumping in and flagging the post again because they'll see it's already had some moderator attention. – JonW Jun 12 '13 at 14:44
  • 1
  • FWIW, you may want to differentiate between "very low quality" posts (that should just be deleted with a comment advising the author to re-post after learning to write) and posts that fail to meet some other site-specific standards (lack of references, etc.) The latter is something that would actually need this, though there hasn't been as much demand for it network-wide thus far. – Shog9 Jun 12 '13 at 14:49
  • @Shog9, yeah, I didn't mean VLQ, but I guess leaving out the "v" wasn't enough. I meant posts that have some currently-unfilled promise, ones that could be brought into line with site expectations. Deleting and inviting the user to edit and flag for review is one response, but it seems harsh if we can tolerate the post just hanging out for a few hours to give the user a chance to fix it. We're not talking steaming cowpies here, but (e.g.) too-short, unsupported answers where I can see a kernel of relevance. – Monica Cellio Jun 12 '13 at 14:53
  • 2
    You might be interested in this feature-request... – Shog9 Jun 12 '13 at 15:02

Browse other questions tagged .