Are flags for "immediate" problems or just problems?

Question

A moderator of a graduated site (but not Stack Overflow) told me in chat today (I am making a cursory attempt at anonymity, but it shouldn't be hard to figure out who it was for the determined):

But don't forget what flags are for.
They are for things that must be handled immediately.
...
If it can wait, start gathering them on that Meta post as an answer.

However, the help center says this:

When should I flag?

If anything happens on our site that makes you feel uncomfortable or that, in your opinion, clearly does not belong here, please flag it and bring it to our attention!

To me, this implies that I should flag anything that is inappropriate, regardless of the time sensitivity.

For clarity, this issue is something that the moderator and I:

• Both agree is a problem
• Both agree is not time sensitive
• Both agree this is something that requires moderator attention, and cannot be handled by the community
  • "Cannot" is the correct word here. It is not an issue of "will take a long time for the community to accumulate enough votes", it's actually impossible for non-moderators to handle.

So, which is it? What is intended by the Stack Exchange philosophy?

1. Flag things that need immediate attention only, go to meta if it's lower priority
2. Flag everything that requires moderator attention, regardless of priority
3. Treat such lower priority issues on a case-by-case basis.
4. Other? (I'm not sure what other would be, but I include for completeness)

Answer 1

Flags are not strictly for "immediate" problems. Expecting flaggers to know what is immediate and what is not isn't realistic; expecting moderators to always handle flags immediately is also not realistic.

Moderators should expect that folks will flag whenever they encounter a problem on the site that they cannot resolve but which a moderator could.

Flaggers should expect that moderators will handle flags as they are able to, in whatever fashion they see as judicious and expedient.

That said...

Flags do not obligate moderators to do anything. Sometimes, there's simply nothing that a moderator can do. In others, the situation is not especially urgent and would benefit immensely from input from the community. "Take it to meta" is a stock response for most of us who've been around here for a while, moderators included - these sites exist for a reason, and when the situation calls for it then everyone benefits from the chance to discuss and organize.

Answer 2

This concerns moderator flags since that's the flag type you identified in comments.

Moderator flags should be raised when you feel that something is happening that requires the attention of a moderator. Period.

Whether or not you think it requires immediate attention or is lower priority isn't something you should consider. The moderators have a flag queue and can work through it as they see fit. If the flag queue system is insufficient because e.g. too many "nuisance" flags are being raised, etc., then that is a sign that some changes may need to be made to the system. Use the system. Let SE work out the bigger systemic issues if there are any.

The key here is to not underestimate the importance of "requires the attention of a moderator". For example:

• "Not an answer" does not require the attention of a moderator. Why? Because a review queue system exists that NAA throws the answer into, and the community handles it. Use the NAA flag.
• "Spam" does not require the attention of a moderator. Why? Because questions will be automatically removed after a number of spam flags, and the system handles it. Use the spam flag.
• "Offensive answer" does not require the attention of a moderator. Why? Same deal as spam.
• "This answer contains typos" does not require the attention of a moderator. Why? Because the community can handle it if necessary through edits.
• "This answer is incorrect" does not require the attention of a moderator. Why? Because this can be stated in comments and reflected in votes, and the community handles it.
• "This question is a duplicate" does not require the attention of a moderator. Why? Because duplicate close votes and duplicate close flags allow the community to handle the case. Use close votes / close flags.
• "This [non locked] question should be deleted because it is off topic" does not require the attention of a moderator. Why? Because the community already has a process in place to lead to the deletion of a question.
• "This new off topic question should be closed as no-repro immediately" does not require the attention of a moderator. Why? Because the community already has a process in place to deal with it, and personal impatience waiting on an arbitrary question to go through a standard process does not equal a need for moderator intervention.

Sometimes things do require the attention of a moderator:

• "Request merge of this question into another" requires the attention of a moderator. Why? Because the community has no means to accomplish this task otherwise.
• "Request comment cleanup" requires the attention of a moderator. Why? Because something bad may be brewing and the community has no means to accomplish this task otherwise.
• "This user appears to be part of a voting ring" requires the attention of a moderator. Why? Because the community has no means to deal with this otherwise.

But, of course, keep in mind things like this:

• "This comment is grammatically incorrect, and the user is ignoring my complaints, please fix the comment" does not require the attention of a moderator. Why? Even though the community has no means to accomplish this task, some discretion is still required on your part. You do need to draw a line somewhere.

TL;DR: Basically, asking about "immediate problems" vs. "just problems" is the wrong question. The correct distinction is things that the community can deal with vs. things a moderator can do. Some discretion on the users part is required, but for the most part, urgentness does not matter. If there is a bigger picture problem where moderators are overloaded with invalid flags, then that problem should be solved on the flag-end rather than by adjusting our behavior.

Answer 3

Answering the specific case, I think the moderator was probably right to direct you to use the meta thread. Here it's not really the urgency - if it were urgent, then flag away, that is; but it's not the lack of urgency. It's the quantity, as well as the opportunity for community members to weigh in.

Flagging one or two questions you think should be cleaned up is a great idea, and I'd say use a flag away. But flagging a few hundred is probably a less efficient way to use your time and theirs, than simply collecting them in a thread. I wasn't entirely sure about this - as the moderator in a flag queue can simply delete directly, verus having to navigate to them - but if that's what the moderator would prefer, sounds like that's the right answer from their efficiency standpoint.

The bigger issue here though, is that you're suggesting deleting a whole bunch of posts that could have differing opinions from the community. While a moderator could certainly make those decisions him/herself, in this case why not get the community's feedback - or at least allow a bit of feedback? Seems like the way to go.

As far as "SE Philosophy", I think there's no explicit guiding logic in either direction here. Each community will be different. StackOverflow I would say a Meta thread gets more attention than a flag, most days. On a small site with two or three moderators who don't devote all that much time (because most weeks moderation is 30 minutes total), flagging 200 questions might be too much to handle. On a site like CR or Programmers, maybe it's the right answer - or maybe not - but it's up to the community (and their moderators) how to handle this sort of thing, ultimately. SE allows both options, and the community picks which they prefer.