3

When I flag posts from several years ago, the flag seems to be never reviewed, unlike recent posts which can reviewed within minutes. I have >10 case like things with flagging things written more than 2 years ago.

Why don't such flags get reviewed as fast as recent posts? They always last for months.

Note: I've read This question, but it doesn't address the difference for old posts vs recent posts. Moreover, if this answer about flag expiry get implemented, flagging old posts would mean such flags can not get reviewed.

Update

Ok, there is no common share about the correlation of a several years old post with less than 1000 view tend to not get it's flags reviewed.
I will create a query on data.SE for this.

  • What type of flag are you talking about? There is a backlog of close votes (~20,000), but other types of flags should still get resolved within a few days. – Matt Apr 6 '14 at 19:28
  • @Matt : flags such as duplicates, others, off-topic (I don't have enough reputations to cast close vostes on ohters questions...). Please note I'm talkin about flagging in general (comments questions answers) – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 19:31
  • 2
    @user2284570 when you flag questions for closure, it acts like a close vote except that the vote doesn't count. That means it goes into the close review queue, so your flags are fighting for attention with the other 100k posts there – psubsee2003 Apr 6 '14 at 19:37
  • those sound like "close" to me – Kate Gregory Apr 6 '14 at 19:37
  • @psubsee2003 : It still don't explain why years old posts can't have their flag reviewed in less than 2 mounths whereas recent one can get reviewed in <1 hour. – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 19:44
  • 1
    @user2284570 that's why it wasn't an answer, but a comment. If it addressed your problem, I would have written it as an answer. – psubsee2003 Apr 6 '14 at 20:18
  • @gnat : No, this is not a feature-request. I'm asking why this behaviour affect very old post and not (or rarely) the very recent ones... This not the same about asking making things faster in general, this is about asking just why certains are systematcly affected. – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 21:20
  • @gnat : Answers in Don't let flag-to-close flags linger for months in flag purgatory will never talk about very recent/very old posts! – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 21:27
  • You could check when the last edit on the question was made. Recent posts seems to be handled earlier and most regular close vote queue handlers filter the queue on a tag and/or close reason. If you flagged low traffic tags it will take longer. – rene Apr 6 '14 at 21:53
  • THEY DON'T TALK ABout old posts (I agree for old flags) at all here : Don't let flag-to-close flags linger for months in flag purgatory. Moreover, if this answer about flag expiry was implementated, flagging old posts would nessary result in a flag expiry. – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 22:05
  • related: Sort Order on Close Vote Queue "...preference is also given to the most recently queued items, particularly when filtering by tag; depending on your preferences and time of day, this might end up giving you newer (rather than more-reviewed) items." – gnat Mar 25 '15 at 7:57
  • @gnat this is a feature-request and this question is support/discussion. The aim of this question is to bring a specific problem. – user2284570 May 25 '15 at 12:00
16

You're casting Recommend Closure flags, which moderators do not ever see. They only go to the Close Votes queue. So why is it taking so long? Well, it completely depends on which question you're flagging for closure.

The Close Votes queue is currently "fuzzied" which means that only questions with a certain threshold of flags and close votes combined will appear in the queue. Looking through some of the questions you've flagged, your flag is the only flag or close vote on the question. The threshold is currently 2, which means the count of 1 does not qualify the question to enter the Close Votes queue. Thus, no one has been able to review your flag because the question has never been pushed anywhere.

Once the threshold drops back down to 1, it should appear in the Close Votes queue within 15 minutes and shouldn't take too long to get reviewed after that. So yes, it's just a waiting game for you. But don't worry; your flag doesn't ever expire.

  • Yes I know, but if they can't viewed they can't get reviewed, it has the same effect of expiring :(. Shall this behaviour considered as a bug? (all the posts older than 2 years aren't reviewed). I'm feeling I'll still see those flag as "active" in 2 years. – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 19:52
  • It's not a bug. They will eventually get reviewed whenever the threshold drops to 1. You just have to wait. – animuson Apr 6 '14 at 19:53
  • 1
    Yes, but the probability to get 1 as threshol seems unlikely. If something makes flags can't get reviewed quickly, it seems it is a problem (the real problem is that ohers posts are unlikely to last so long). – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 19:56
  • 1
    Well, you can be negative about it if you want, but that doesn't make it a bug. – animuson Apr 6 '14 at 19:59
  • I still don't understand why recent posts seems to get the threshold 1. – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 20:09
  • 1
    @user2284570 I don't have a reference, but it is my understanding that newer posts get prioritized in the review queue. similarly, newer posts get more close votes outside the review queue, so get they close more quickly. – psubsee2003 Apr 6 '14 at 20:23
  • All forums, chats, etc systems (including logging files) are done so, that people see only newer things, therefore they're only watchers and dependants on news and threats. It's not constructive at all. The majority of ppl are based on traditions... ... ... They're newcomers to every resource. For example they leave 1-2 questions and leave and/or get banned. I have an outstanding in-and-out entry-and-go system on Google Q&A someone says smth and don't care about his short question in the future (at all). Of course it's an extreme point. But on the other hand anyone should wait for some minutes – Xsi Apr 6 '14 at 20:27
  • @psubsee2003 : In fact, you're just suggesting this because you think it, and you didn't read anything on SE.com that tell about it, isn't it? :) – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 20:28
  • One waits to receive non-immediately written and thought over one's issue. But after a certain amount of time the "recency" countdown of decreasing actuality begins anew. As I mentioned, the problem hides beneath the very first page - it's solely of newer things. And the majority - the novices, sure they are. – Xsi Apr 6 '14 at 20:28
  • @animuson : Any ideas? – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 20:31
  • @user2284570 why is it such a big deal? Flags get reviewed when they get reviewed. I did read something on MSO, but I don't remember where it was and I am virtually certain it was in a comment, so it isn't searchable. – psubsee2003 Apr 6 '14 at 20:37
  • @animuson : MMMh WAIT! fuzzing as been implemented in Febrary. I'm seeing this behavioour since november 2013. What's going on? – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 20:49
  • @user2284570 When that change went live, all review tasks which no loner qualified were invalidated. You have to realize that before this change there were over 100,000 questions in that review queue. So it's very likely they wouldn't have been reviewed. – animuson Apr 6 '14 at 20:51
  • @animuson : I always got recent posts reviewed within the week before the change (they all have been reviewed know). It doesn't exaplain why none of the post written in 2011/early 2013 I've flagged in november haven't been reviewed. – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 20:58
13

When a post is recent, there is a good chance you are not the only one looking at it. If other users see the problem that you are seeing, they will vote to close, perhaps independently of your flag. This leads to the question being closed, which automatically marks your flag as helpful.

When a post is several years old, there's a good chance you are the only one looking at it now. Your flag is recorded, but with the huge close queue, in all likelihood it will have to wait a long time.

  • +1 sounds more likely. But it would be better if it was confirmed by the statistics inside logs files (I know you can't do this, sorry). I think it can be the explaination for before the fuzzing implementation. – user2284570 Apr 6 '14 at 21:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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