The "Looks OK" option on Low Quality Post reviews is not ideally worded.

Due to the fact the post has been reported for Low Quality means in most cases "something" is wrong with it. Even if deletion or editing is not the solution, it shouldn't be concluded as "Looks OK".


Change "Looks OK" to something which more accurately represents the outcome being used for the review.

Such as:
"Deletion Not Required"
"Don't Delete"

Then our choice is what the review outcome actually is - "I don't think this should be deleted" rather than "this looks ok to me".

If people have to choose "Looks OK" for what is a terrible post but doesn't need deleting, they might be forced towards a general "meh" attitude "Doesn't look OK but whatever".
Whereas, their choosing "Don't Delete" might push "No, this does not need deleting, but I'm going to damn well downvote and/or comment after this review" *

* I'm no psychologist and this is likely total cobblers, but sounds feasible to me

Suggested Edits don't have "Looks OK", they have "Approve", and the Low Quality review choices should be allowed the same logic and sanity :)


1 Answer 1


The problem with your suggested rephrasing "Deletion Not Required" or "Don't Delete" is that it implies the options for moderators are limited to "Delete" or "Let it be". A conscientious mod could opt to improve the post instead.

I suggest a more accurate rephrasing that matches the mod's decision not to take any action:

No Action Required

Which should cover all possible reasons for why a mod would want to leave a post alone.

  • 2
    Actually, this might clarify the purpose of the Edit button, which at present is often misunderstood. It really means "Don't delete this — I can fix it", not "I'd like to make some random changes to this post". Aug 8, 2015 at 15:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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