Jeff stated in a comment on my answer here that users are allowed to re-flag a post after the initial flag is cleared from the moderator queue (I infer this to mean that you can flag a post as much as you want, but only have one active flag per post at a time, which makes sense).

I've never found this to be true in practice, so of course I had to test it out just to be sure.

I flagged my own answer instructing a mod to clear the flag and post a comment on my answer when that was completed. @Random did this for me. I tried to flag my post again, but got the standard error message:

You have already flagged this post for moderator attention

The button appears after inputting the 10 character minimum, but submitting it after that results in the error message.

So, I'm filing this as a bug report because I doubt Jeff thinks some part of the system is implemented and yet it actually isn't. And because I would really really like to have this ability.

  • 3
    I've never been able to flag the same post for mod attention twice, and assumed it was intentional.
    – Ether
    Commented Aug 23, 2010 at 3:53
  • Interesting; if true, this would obviate the need for my feature request here.
    – Pops
    Commented Aug 23, 2010 at 14:02
  • 2
    @Pop: Yeah. It would probably take care of a bunch of feature requests. Waiting 4 days to re-flag is actually quite reasonable, and I could definitely live with that.
    – Jon Seigel
    Commented Aug 23, 2010 at 17:28

3 Answers 3


Once a mod has attended to your previous flag, you may then flag a post again.

This will be deployed tonight or tomorrow.

  • I was about to say, this doesn't happen currently. Glad it's being deployed. Thanks team!!!!
    – jcolebrand
    Commented Jul 1, 2011 at 4:44
    – Jon Seigel
    Commented Jul 1, 2011 at 15:33

Allow re-flagging if the original is successful, and only delay it if the flagging was unsuccessful.

A similar system works with questioning the line-ball call in tennis - as many successful challenges as you like, but only 3 unsuccessful ones.

  • There's no "success" in flagging for moderator attention. The closest we have could be called "resolution", in which we clear the flag because we've concluded what needed to be done. It's the same whether we actually do anything or not.
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Commented Nov 18, 2010 at 13:20
  • 1
    I don't have a problem with the existing system as Jeff says in his answer... except for the fact that it currently doesn't work.
    – Jon Seigel
    Commented Nov 18, 2010 at 17:40
  • @Grace, I thought there was a system now in which users that flag 'correctly' get treated with higher priority over time? This 'success' could be tied into the same feedback system.
    – bdonlan
    Commented Feb 16, 2011 at 11:37
  • @bdonlan That comment predates the new system.
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Commented Feb 16, 2011 at 11:54
  • @Grace, ah, indeed, oops. Sorry for the thread necromancy there - I'll leave it to rest now.
    – bdonlan
    Commented Feb 16, 2011 at 12:14

I had munged an obscene answer yesterday (and flagged for moderator attention), and found that someone had rolled it back today. I then rolled back to the munge, and tried to flag the moderator again, but it gave me an orange-box message saying that I had already flagged the moderator, so I had to go to an adjacent answer to do the flag.

I don't think rate-limiting is a good idea on Mod flags. There are too many edge cases where you might need to give the moderator a message.

  • I don't mind the rate limiting. I think the idea behind 4 days was to be loosely coupled to close vote expiration (a discussion in itself, if true). If there was rate limiting, and assuming that it's currently 4 days, what do you think is more reasonable? 2 days?
    – Jon Seigel
    Commented Aug 24, 2010 at 16:55
  • I'm sure a day would be more reasonable, but I don't see the purpose in rate-limiting for moderator flagging. If there's an issue, there's an issue. The problem with a delay is that I then have to track the issue, what a pain that is. Commented Aug 24, 2010 at 17:45
  • Okay, that's fair. (Also, sorry for the slow reply, you didn't comment ping me.)
    – Jon Seigel
    Commented Aug 26, 2010 at 3:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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