-13

I'd like to suggest StackExchange sites relabel the "flag" link and call it "appeal" once a question is closed.

NOTE: This is not meant to change the functionality behind the link. What the "flag" link does now would be the exact same function the "appeal" link would perform when it supplants the "flag" link.

My motivation and reasoning for this feature request is as follows:

See, I've had my share of questions on the various StackExchange sites closed for being "off-topic", or because, "This question already has an answer here". In some cases I'd like to appeal to some panel of judges that rules over the StackExchange universe. I understand the "flag" link appears to have been designed for this purpose, but can we relabel it once a question is closed? It would be nice if it said, "appeal" instead. Makes more sense.

I think the term "flag" is more appropriate while a question is still open and fault hasn't yet been found with it. Then it would make sense for the fault-finder to click "flag". The fault-finder found fault with the question and he wants to flag it for moderators to review and maybe either initiate an edit cycle or close it down.

But once it's closed, the people who are more likely to express some disagreement they'd like to flag are usually either (a) those who wrote the question originally and are upset with how it was closed, or (b) other readers who might tend to agree with the question's original intent and disagree with the moderators who closed it. They want to appeal the decision to close the question.

So, how about we dynamically relabel the "flag" link and call it "appeal" once a question is closed?

  • 6
    You might still want to flag a post after closure for flaggy reasons. Lets say a post that was closed was vandalised. There's no need to appeal, only deal with it. It also means we don't have a UI that morphs depending on context. – Journeyman Geek Mar 29 at 1:26
  • I like how you said, "flaggy" reasons! Truthfully I never considered that a post could be vandalized. I didn't think that kind of thing ever went on around here! I suppose then that is a case where a closed post ought to be "flagged" and the context would make more sense if the label were left as is. I guess I'll just have to live with all the negative downvotes I've already received for this idea. – ShieldOfSalvation Mar 31 at 4:35
5

When your question is closed, you should not be flagging for it to be reopened. There is no "should be reopened" flag, so the only other option is to flag as "requires moderator attention". As the name implies, this should be used for stuff that requires moderators to investigate. Unless there's abuse going on (which there isn't 99.99% of the time), this is something that the community can and should handle.

If you believe your question was wrongly closed, you can post about it on meta or vote to reopen it when you have sufficient reputation. But flagging for moderator attention allows only one user to investigate; the other two options allow for gathering more community input (voting to reopen sends the question to a review queue where users with sufficient reputation can vote to leave closed or reopen).

So, I disagree with your feature request because flagging shouldn't be used for "appealing" a question to be reopened. If the name was changed, it would be misinterpreted and incorrect.

  • 1
    I am not requesting that the functionality behind the link be changed. Rather, I am just recommending that the label change. The functionality would stay as is. Neither am I suggesting that a closed question be reopened just because the link says "appeal". I am only trying to make the contextual function of the link seem more appropriate and intuitive depending on the state of the thread. – ShieldOfSalvation Mar 28 at 23:27
  • 1
    @ShieldOfSalvation I never said anything about changing the functionality. I'm saying that the link should not say "appeal" because it should not be used for appealing that a question be reopened. – Pikachu the Parenthesis Wizard Mar 28 at 23:28
  • I suppose now we are arguing about semantics. I didn't mean to start such an argument. – ShieldOfSalvation Mar 28 at 23:30
  • @ShieldOfSalvation I wouldn't call it an argument, it's more of a useful discussion. – Pikachu the Parenthesis Wizard Mar 28 at 23:30
  • Well, I didn't mean "argument" in the negative, colloquial sense either! I meant, a disagreement about semantics. There. ;) – ShieldOfSalvation Mar 28 at 23:32
  • Now that's more accurate, @ShieldOfSalvation. – Pikachu the Parenthesis Wizard Mar 28 at 23:33
  • Well, speaking about accuracy, when you commented that you, "never said anything about changing the functionality," that's actually the gist I got when you originally first posted, "When your question is closed, you should not be flagging for it to be reopened. There is no 'should be reopened' flag." This is why I first replied to you with, "I am not requesting that the functionality behind the link be changed." – ShieldOfSalvation Mar 28 at 23:35
  • 2
    @ShieldOfSalvation okay, I see where the confusion is. The point I was making was that the only option is to use a custom moderator flag since there is no builtin flag to reopen a question like the "should be closed" flag. – Pikachu the Parenthesis Wizard Mar 28 at 23:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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