I recently flagged this post for being very low quality and just noticed it was declined. Could someone kindly shed some light as to why this would be? I mean, I thought it was pretty obvious that is was low quality. At the least, they could have provided working code instead of just the selector but even then, they should expand on it. Maybe provide a link to the documentation?

  • What makes it very low quality? hint: Not enough detail isn't very low quality. Think of it like this. – George Stocker Feb 28 '14 at 3:50
  • @LowerClassOverflowian There have been a lot more bad flags recently. More bad flags = more declined flags. – Kevin Feb 28 '14 at 3:55
  • There've been enough bad flags for a good long while now, @Kevin - we just started telling people about them. – Shog9 Feb 28 '14 at 4:14

For what it's worth, I just deleted that answer because it was the same as a different answer on the same question but with less detail. I think it's fair to say that, regardless of quality, this sort of redundancy amounts to little more than noise. But this is a somewhat controversial opinion.

Very Low Quality is somewhat subjective. My usual guidance is that you should reserve this flag for posts that are clearly garbage - posts that aren't just wrong but are an outright embarrassment to everyone who sees them. Keep in mind that one person's opinion may differ from another's in this matter: if a moderator or other users view an answer as... Not great, but passable... Then your flag will be disputed or declined. If this happens occasionally, don't worry about it. If it happens often, consider that you might be better off just down-voting such posts: there's nothing wrong with the occasional example of what not to do floating around, and if the author decides he's tired of the down-votes he can always delete it himself.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thanks for this answer because I also flagged that post and wondered why it was declined then deleted by you. Makes a little more sense now. But I still think there should be a better option than just downvoting for link/code-only answers. Even answers that I give which seem obvious or could be solved with a link or simple code, I don't post unless I can give some explanation to. I cringe every time I see a link/code-only answers. – codeMagic Feb 28 '14 at 4:10
  • Thanks, I'll try and be more specific with my flags next time. Regardless, I think whoever declined my flag should have done something with the answer rather than leave it there. No? Just me? – SeanWM Feb 28 '14 at 4:11
  • A down-vote and a comment can be shockingly effective if you know how to wield them, @codeMagic. Really, it's quite amazing what a little bit of communication can accomplish! – Shog9 Feb 28 '14 at 4:11
  • Realistically, that answer wasn't hurting anything, @SeanWM. I removed it because frankly it was becoming a waste of time for the folks flagging it and clearly nothing of value was lost - but if you'd just down-voted it and moved on to the next one, that would've been perfectly fine too. – Shog9 Feb 28 '14 at 4:12
  • "Communication"? I will have to look that one up ;) I have had people thank me when I comment that they need to elaborate but doesn't seem as often as when it seems to be ignored. Just thinking about how many I see makes me sick. Anyway, thanks, I will work on doing better on downvoting and commenting only without the flags for those answers. – codeMagic Feb 28 '14 at 4:14

You must log in to answer this question.

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