While reviewing some flagged answers in the review queue there was one answer that seemed to have an undeserved flag, or flags. So, I pressed the button for the dialogue, up it popped and then I failed to easily identify the 'invalid flags' option for a few moments.

This, I think (dismissing intermittent blindness as an alternative option) is due to the way the list is ordered, and my assumptions that the flagging options would, and should, be grouped together (according to their shared purpose), and the 'invalid flags' would be a separate option/group (due to the precisely inverse function of that option).

So, I'd request a regrouping of options according to shared functionality (which makes more sense to me, perhaps due to my having recently read "Don't Make me Think"); the following makes more sense to me, though I accept it's probably subjective:

  • it is spam
  • it is offensive, abusive, or hate speech
  • it is not an answer
  • it has very low quality

  • other (needs ♦ moderator attention)

  • it has invalid flags

The blank-line separators are intentional, in order to clearly separate the options from each other; though I'd probably prefer to have boxes or a colour-scheme too to make the grouping obvious.

Note that the purpose of this isn't to fix something that's broken, simply to make something easier.

  • 1
    I know downvotes don't require explanation, and, anyway, simply represent disagreement here on Meta; but I'm curious about the disagreement here; is it because it's a silly request, or simply too minor/unnecessary? (Obviously it makes sense to me, but contrary opinions would be welcome.) Dec 16, 2013 at 22:18


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .