-20

On Ask Ubuntu we have a very small minority of users who occasionally flag answers where the content might be technically incorrect (a wrong assumption, syntax error, etc), or it needs an small amount of editing to really work. These are cases where removing the post is not the desired final outcome.

They should be commenting to let the user know there's a problem, voting to add urgency and rank the questions properly or just editing to fix the problems in the post.

Flags make it too cheap and easy to push quality issues off to 10ks and mods!

So with the exception of the super-important flags {spam, offensive}, can I suggest:

  1. We "charge" 5 reputation for each flags when the flag is created.
  2. If a mod agrees, or otherwise finds it helpful, the flagger gets their reputation back. Maybe a +2 bonus (like suggested edits) to reward positive flagging behaviour?
  3. If it's a lazy junk flag (and a moderator thinks it's a lazy flag), reject their flag with prejudice, keeping the rep they fronted.

This sounds adversarial but I don't think this is something most of our flagging users would mind. They can afford it. And it would certainly underline the "stop flagging rubbish like this" reject reason.

Additionally, the flag dialogue could include a "CC and downvote" this answer checkbox to highlight the need to tell the poster of a problem before it goes to moderators.

And edits should be rewarded for all users. Doesn't have to be reputation. Just a prominent count of edits that you could rank users by would help keep people interested in doing the tough stuff.

Improve this question
9
  • 5
    Why not just decline the flag if it has been thrown inappropriately ?
    – user147520
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 14:33
  • 5
    What is wrong with the system of rejecting the flags - and flag-banning persistent transgressors?
    – Chenmunka
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 14:34
  • 5
    I agree that flags shouldn't be cheaper than downvotes. The fix is to remove the rep cost for downvotes, so people actually use them when they think a post is bad. Making most people not downvote or flag when a post merits it is just making the problem worse
    – Servy
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 14:37
  • 1
    But there's still more spam everywhere else, and if we lose 5 rep, I (and other new users) will quickly lose rep, especially if we are not active on that site like Drupal Answers. 100 rep will run quickly on spammy days
    – Universal Electricity
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 14:44
  • 1
    @Servy All things isolated, that's not a bad shout but downvotes have a price to stop people abusing them (to elevate their answers)
    – Oli
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 14:44
  • @Unix I explicitly say that spam/offensive flags should not be counted in this.
    – Oli
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 14:44
  • @Oli I upvoted this because I do think over-use of flags is an issue; not sure about rep deposits, though... The problem I see with rewarding edits for all users is some may just edit and edit and edit for rep instead of asking question and more importantly, answering them. Particularly if, like me, they feel a little shy about asking and answering because they are worried about downvotes (I know, I know, don't be so self-conscious, right? But I can't be the only one who feels this way).
    – user333703
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 15:14
  • @Oli - that could be countered by not allowing people to downvote answers where they post an answer. This probably is a reasonable solution as it gives you an option to either indicate an answer is wrong/not helpful, or post an actual helpful answer which should quickly rise above the others (and gives the option to explain why other answers are wrong in detail). It does not, however, address the problem with revenge downvoting, though recognizing that has become pretty good.
    – AJ Henderson
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 15:55
  • 1
    Only if I get +10 rep when my flags are approved...
    – Laurel
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 17:16

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
11

Your proposal makes things worse instead of better.

Do you really want to scare off users to use flags, just because they don't want to lose their reputation? There are already enough users that don't downvote because it costs them 1 point. How many users you think will flag something suspicious if it costs them 5 reputation? Won't that leave very bad content around for those few not interested in their reputation?

Can't we just educate users when to flag and (temporary) flag ban those users who have proven to consistently misuse this feature?

Improve this answer
5
  • To be fair, the spam & offensive flag have been excluded from this request in the first place. However, I agree with your overall sentiment.
    – Meta Andrew T.
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 14:59
  • Agreed. Updated @meatball
    – Patrick Hofman
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 15:43
  • To be clear, I'm not suggesting a permanent cost. If you flag is good (or at least helpful), you get your rep back (with interest). It only costs if it's a bad flag. A token amount of reputation shows conviction and helps stop spurious flagging "because it was the easiest thing to do" (short of nothing).
    – Oli
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 16:26
  • 1
    It works as a deterrent too for quite some users, just like downvoting. You will get it back once removed, but most don't want to take that risk.
    – Patrick Hofman
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 16:32
  • This exactly. I've had flags declined through review which were correct (and the action I flagged for was taken, usually the exact same flag reason even) and I'd have lost rep for. I'm a good, conscientious flagger, I have few declined flags and review my flags after I cast them to ensure I know how to flag. If I lost rep to incorrect reviews, I would stop flagging. (I don't balk at downvoting for a 1 rep penalty, but I would balk at a 5 rep flagging penalty. I'm still decently low rep on the sites I frequent most.)
    – Kendra
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 16:58
9

If people are misusing flags this way, the flags should be declined. There's even a canned decline reason about not using flags to point out wrong information.

A user who has too many declined flags will temporarily lose the ability to flag. That's the stick built into the system to counter flag misuse.

If those flags are being validated or the community is deleting these posts from the low-quality review queue, you should raise the issue on your meta.

Improve this answer
4

If flags have been thrown inappropriately the correct thing to do is decline them and to educate the people throwing the flags in their correct usage.

If people persist in throwing flags incorrectly the system will evetually reward them with a flag ban.

Perhaps some targeted Q&A on Ask Ubuntu's meta would be the right thing to do here.

Improve this answer
1
  • I think there should be some sort of penalty for people who consistently flag things inappropriately when chasing badges or whatever, something a little less than a flag ban, but still a slap on the wrist. Perhaps a rep penalty for a specific number of declined flags in a row (like 3-5, maybe).
    – user333703
    Commented Jul 8, 2016 at 14:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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