The current flagging dialog for questions gives you the following options:

  • it needs ♦ moderator attention
    • very low quality
    • other…
  • it doesn't belong here, or it is a duplicate…
  • it is spam
  • it is not welcome in our community

Now, with the recent changes to the flagging system, flags for closure do not go to the moderator queue directly anymore, but the questions will be put into the review queue. This is great, since it lifts the weight off the moderator queue, but there's one option that is still rather misleading here:

it doesn't belong here, or it is a duplicate…

This makes it sound like the question needs to be on another site. Now, for inexperienced users or people who want to start flagging, this would be the option they choose if they want the question to be moved—if they even know what migration is—but what if they want to put the question to be put on hold? Which option should they choose?

Questions that are put on hold or are closed are something you see quite often as a new user, but if you start to flag and don't know the system, what option would you choose?

Point in case, we just had a user who flagged the questions they wanted closed as very low quality, probably for the lack of a better option in the dialog.

Wouldn't it be much clearer if we renamed this option into (a variation of) the following?

it needs to be closed, migrated to another site, or it is a duplicate…

This would convey what's behind that option. Upon clicking, you'll find the site-specific reasons for closure, migration, or marking it as a duplicate.

  • If it does belong here, why not to leave decision if it's clear enough or narrow enough to people who proven their understanding with their 3k+ rep? Note, I'm not saying there is no reason, but if there is, please add it.
    – Mołot
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 7:23
  • 2
    I'm not sure I follow you. The people who decide whether a question is put on hold or not are 3k users who follow up on the questions in the review queue.
    – slhck
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 7:26
  • I mean "do we really need lower rep people to throw them into the queue?". After all I guess more than a half of questions on Drupal Answers would be "Unclear what you're asking" for Drupal beginners, and non-beginners can earn 3k pretty fast. I'm not sure how it is on SO, but my guess is that would be similar on most pages.
    – Mołot
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 7:29
  • @Molot I think you missed the point here; the request is just to change the wording, nothing more. Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 7:32
  • 2
    @Mołot Remember: whether or not a question is unclear should not depend on the expertise of the person looking at the question. It is all about whether the question is understandable, succinctly written, and shows a minimum amount of effort (i.e., everything you find in the site-specific close reasons for SO). We should always allow <3k users to recommend a question for closure—otherwise you'd need to have at least one 3k user look at every question posted to a site. (And what Sha Wiz Dow Ard said.)
    – slhck
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 7:32
  • @ShaWizDowArd Change the wording to encourage flagging - but should it be encouraged to people who didn't quite proven themselves yet? That was my point here.
    – Mołot
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 7:33
  • @Mołot That's the whole point of community review. If a new user suggests questions for closure and they end up being left open, their flag will be declined, which creates the desired feedback on their actions.
    – slhck
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 7:34
  • Will they? I mean, on small sites like DA yes, but on SO? How's the % of review items that evaporated from queue before anyone dug deep enough into it to actually decide either way? And what's the fag's status then? Whatever it is, it does not depend on flag's validity in such cases anyway, right?
    – Mołot
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 7:37
  • @Molot it doesn't suppose to draw more users to flag, just guide those who are already flagging to use the correct flag. Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 7:41
  • @ShaWizDowArd Well, if you are sure of it... but that's a guess or an intent, not a fact. I wish we could know it for a fact.
    – Mołot
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 7:43
  • 2
    @Mołot Could you take your suggestions or discussion to a separate question? I'm really just suggesting to rename the field here, not start a discussion about whether users <3k should be able to raise flags for closure. Thanks.
    – slhck
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 7:46
  • 1
    I'm very much in favor of this, but the "needs to be put on hold" phrasing sounds awkward to me for some reason. Not that I can come up anything better; e.g. "this question needs to be held" Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 10:33
  • @CodyGray I could live with "needs to be closed", but that wouldn't be as precise.
    – slhck
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 10:43
  • Hmm, you know, I think "should be closed" is good. We've changed the wording to "on hold" primarily for the asker's benefit, not the closers. And the "on hold" status ages to "closed" anyway, so you shouldn't be voting to put questions "on hold" if you don't actually think they should be closed. Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 10:45
  • That is a good argument. I've changed my request. Thank you, @Cody.
    – slhck
    Commented Aug 21, 2013 at 10:47


You must log in to answer this question.