I have a feeling that outside Stack Overflow and a few of the other largest sites at many times of day the number of 2k+ users that actively flag and process review queues is quite limited. I have an hypothesis that when an obvious NAA like "Thanks that answer is great!" arrives on a smaller site that the core group of active users at the time:

  • See it immediately and flag and maybe downvote it.

  • See it on the first post / late answer queue first and do the same.

Either action removes the possibility of further reviewing it on the low quality queue to recommend deletion which leaves it to 20k users (in short supply on many sites) or moderators to delete it. I have no way to confirm this other than personal observations but such answers seem to mostly end up being handled by moderators while close votes are mostly handled by the community.

I'd like to propose that after raising a NAA / LQ flag you later get the chance to review it on the LQ queue after the normal time has elapsed. That would avoid reducing the pool size of possible reviewers and hopefully get more of them handled faster by the community.

  • Not that I disagree with your request (since I also experienced this), but would it make the vote "unfair", since your vote will almost always support the flag? Commented Oct 20, 2015 at 12:50
  • I'm sure I've seen some answers I downvoted in the LQRQ. Correct about flagging, but conceptually, validating own flags seems to be a conflict of interests. I have to keep in mind to check LQRQ before anything else, when I open a small site where I'm at 2K.
    – user259867
    Commented Oct 20, 2015 at 12:52
  • @AndrewT. I think though that by raising an NAA you are standing behind it to a fair degree, too many rejections will get you a flag ban. But this is really about it seems a bit silly 10 people could flag as NAA as not review it, whereas if because of timing 1 flagged first the other 9 could.
    – PeterJ
    Commented Oct 20, 2015 at 12:53
  • I am upvoting your answer, not entirely because I agree with the feature requested, but the problem should be addressed, no matter how. Commented Oct 20, 2015 at 14:44

1 Answer 1


I think self-handling of posts you have flagged defeats the entire purpose of the review queue, no matter how short-supplied the site is.

Maybe there is another way around, and that is that flags should contribute to the end result of the review. If, lets say, 10 people flagged an answer as NAA, why is it still going through the queue? Isn't the general consensus clear on this then? I think there should be a way to remove these items from the queue and let them go straight for deletion.

  • 2
    When I first read this I was a bit mixed but I'm warming to it now - it does lower the bar a lot to 15 rep to flag but like spam a lot of them are so blatant it'd be a good thing to get more people involved and 10 is probably a good number.
    – PeterJ
    Commented Oct 20, 2015 at 13:21
  • 6
    Another thought. What about linking to the review when flagging? Stop! You are trying to flag this, see this pending review first. @PeterJ Commented Oct 20, 2015 at 14:43
  • 1
    That sounds like an excellent idea and saves wasting flags. It might also help with flags that get invalidated by edits if more people still have flags available after the edit.
    – PeterJ
    Commented Oct 20, 2015 at 22:00
  • Allowing only those with the necessary rep to both flag and review, but only if they happen to run into the same item again (likely, but not guaranteed) and take the same action in a different context with extra UI cues is far less risky than allowing just anyone with 15 rep to contribute automatically to the review outcome with a single action. Commented Nov 24, 2015 at 3:04
  • I see your point there Nathan. I would expect the reputation requirement to hold up. Commented Nov 24, 2015 at 6:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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