I noticed that there was a auto-flag from Community ♦. I noticed that it gave me an option to dismiss a flag as helpful or not.  Two scenarios that it wouldn't be ideal:   Accidental click: we could just have a yes/no dialog pop up. This would still allow mods to back out before it's too late. Multiple flags: we could still dismiss them individually. A yes/now popup would appear and it would treat it as a normal flag.   This wouldn't be hard to implement: just a simple if() statement to tell if it's a community flag. If it is, just send another dialog. Otherwise, do the usual dialog. It's super simple and I'd think it'd be easier. Bonus: use the extra space to add a unicorn/waffles/ponies!  Photo:
120963
If Community ♦ flags something for low quality or because of consecutive closed questions or whatever, I always have to click that the flag was helpful (or declined):      To my understanding, it doesn't make a difference. So, why ask in the first place?
40390
, for example, should certainly be flagged for spam. But to do so, I have to click the question title below and find the answer. Why can't there be a Flag button next to the Recommend Deletion button?
41802
I'm not quite sure what to search for on this, but I noticed a little number on one (and only one, so I couldn't pinpoint a trend) of my flags in my flag history.   The text appears as follows:     title of question [closed] (1)   the flag was marked as helpful, the question was subsequently closed, yet a little (1) remains. I tried to see what that question had that the other questions did not, but moderator shut-down, specific tags, number of votes didn't matter. My only guess would be number of answers to the question? But I have no evidence for that. Does anyone know for certain?
50726
This might sound strange, but at a few occasions I've felt the need to be able to flag my own comments. I give you :  Do you mention anything I didn't mention in my answer? Perhaps V2C? I have no idea what that means, and meta search doesn't show up anything. – Steven Jeuris Oct 1 '11 at 14:42 You're feeling very negative today, it seems. – Donal Fellows Oct 1 '11 at 19:36  Clearly I was in a bad mood when I wrote that, and I should have expressed myself better. I'm human, that can happen. I now feel it would be better for both those comments to be deleted. My current options  Delete my own comment and flag the other: deleting my own context would remove the context for the moderator. I imagine it makes moderating the flag more difficult. Delete my own comment and apologize in a new one (no flags): the comment thread gets broken. Leave it as is: I don't see how leaving those comments around is helpful at all. Add a new comment: This would lengthen an unnecessary comment thread.  What I want to do  Flag my own comment. Optionally after the comments were removed, and I see merit in the argument I was raising, mentioning it in a more polite way.
50023
This post is an expansion of  For many graduated sites (eg Physics), moderators do not want to apply the unilateral close vote in all cases--it is better to let some community votes pile on first.  We only use the unilateral in obvious cases then. This renders the CV queue useless to us. If we &quot;skip&quot; something, we can't get back to it. If we say &quot;do not close&quot;, it's removed from the queue and our community can't see it. If we use &quot;close&quot;, we are using a unilateral mod vote--we don't want to do that. What I propose is a set of &quot;next/previous&quot; buttons, that let us navigate the queues, looking for closeable questions, and coming back to the others later. Thoughts? Update and bounty reason Due to the recent Great Flag Overhaul, mods no longer see close flags in the flag queue. Which means that the only way to get to them is via the review queue 1 Shog's solution is ideal in this case; let mods view the close queue as a list. (In fact, a list similar to the old flag queue -- which shows a list of mods who have seen the post and what mod actions have already been taken -- would be great) On Physics, the majority of the flags that we get are VTC flags. And the community isn't always able to close things on their own, so we have to step in. However, powering through the close queue isn't an option; because &quot;skip&quot;ing a post2 leads to it being dumped into the void (I can't get back to it unless I have a link). Extremely inconvenient. Could the workflow here be improved? 1. The /tools listing for posts with outstanding close votes doesn't work because it doesn't list posts which have been flagged but not VTCd 2. which I may want to take a closer look at later; gotta be careful with the binding votes.
110873
All my flags that were raised before April 2011 are marked as "active", except spam/offensive flags which are marked helpful:        Checking some, they were obviously helpful (e.g. post deleted as result) so most likely the "helpful" bit was not recorded yet back then.  I don't think it should stay "pending" forever, better just remove it and put "status not recorded" or something like that.  Worth also to mention, this is causing a mis-calculation in the new flag history, as reported here:
45214
I misread the content of a comment, and flagged it. Then I realized that the comment wasn't what I had initially thought. Would it be possible to have the ability to retract comment flags, just like we have the ability to retract flags on questions and answers?  I'm aware of this &#32;. But the answer there is just that it's not possible. At the time it was not possible to retract any flags.   This is a separate  which requests that it may become possible to retract comment flags.  If I've realized a flag was a mistake, I think it's unnecessary to keep it in the queue of content the moderators have to look at. Also, it would add an unnecessary "rejected" to the flaggers statistics. Sure, people should think before they flag. But everyone makes mistakes sometimes.
67535
I am requesting for a new flag so that we can immediately flag questions in which people are asking for help on a problem from an ongoing contest, and if there is anything related to code or the algorithm in that question, it is deleted permanently from the view of others.  I am asking for this because I have seen a few questions, in which the OP was asking us to help fix their code on Stack Overflow. The Code they posted was from an ongoing contest on , and that would be considered cheating.  On codechef, we are told to not share anything from code, algorithm, or anything related to a problem from an ongoing contest, but since users are unable to ask their questions there, they come to Stack Overflow and ask it there.  Up till now, when I encounter questions like that, I flag them for moderator attention explaining the reason ( I don't have enough reputation to vote to close ).   I have not been a user on SO for long, but I have met a few questions like this already. This is one  . It's already deleted, but I think there should be a quick way to flag it so that it is brought to the notice of moderators quickly so that the code is not leaked. ( I don't want to increase the Work load on moderators, but something similar would be useful ).  So I request a new flag so that these questions can be flagged quickly to prevent the leaking of code and also make it easier, rather than having to type a good reason and wait for a moderator to accept it.  Please forgive me If this is a Duplicate as I could not find anything related to this on MSE yet.
36840
The flag queue lists automatically-detected .  According to  and other questions on MSO, there is nothing wrong with such duplicate answers&mdash;except insofar as they are potentially indicative of a duplicate question.  So, having verified that the answers do not merit a flag for any other reason (and having flagged the questions as duplicates if appropriate: although if that was the purpose of this exercise, shouldn't the system have raised automatic flags on the questions instead?), how should one respond to these flags?  It seems that the only option is to flag for moderator attention, either:   because "I do not agree with the existing flags on this answer, they are incorrect and should be ignored." (invalid flag), even though I do agree that the answers are indeed duplicates; or for a custom reason.   Neither of the above really feel very appropriate.  Perhaps if the flag was instead "suspected spam" (or similar) it would be easier to flag as being invalid?
105846
We get some questions from time to time where the OP has posted his access codes or API keys to various online systems, like Twitter, Facebook, etc.  These questions tend to linger in the flag queue for a long time since moderators do not have the ability to completely remove a revision or even the whole question, we can only do a soft-delete.  As such, a flag is usually left by a moderator for a dev/team to look at, and I suspect the devs/the team has enough to do because those flags tend to be sitting in the queue for at least a day, often drawing multiple flags from the OP to have his question deleted. In other words, since the question cannot be fixed without a complete delete, without a dev, the OP gives up waiting for his question to be fixed and instead requests it to be completely deleted. It would be nice if we could avoid that.  Would it be possible to get a function where moderators could completely remove a revision and/or the whole question, as long as multiple moderators agree? What I mean is that I could flag the question/revision for a hard-deletion, and 1-2 other moderators would have to agree by flagging in the same way. Once it has accrued enough such flags, it is gone. Optimally the flag would require the first moderator to write a short explanation of why this is necessary as well.  This would mean the moderators could fix such things themselves, without involving or waiting for a dev/the team to handle it, and still not be able to remove anything completely by themselves, a consensus is needed.
100729
System hides an option to flag Very Low Quality in few cases, namely when post is:        Because of that users who already flagged it when none of above conditions applied miss an option to .  Suggest1 to show this flag option to such users so that they could retract a flag.    1 Frankly I won't mind if this gets  because I doubt that it is important. This is posted mainly to document how system behaves and to provide reference for those who may wonder why they can't retract flag in some cases.
106914
When we enter the flagging history for our account through the number link in our profile, we get a nice list of flagged questions/answers, and on the right a summary of the number of helpful, disputed, declined flags. I would like to see a special tab for the history of comment flags, or even have them interspersed between the other flags. This request arises because I like my flags to be as helpful as possible (don't we all?) and I would like to be able to see which flags are declined, so that I can e.g. ask around for the reasoning behind that. This is especially relevant since my answer and question flags are all deemed helpful (save one, which was accidentally denied and a follow-up custom flag dealt with it), but I regularly have one of my comment flags denied.  I am aware that this request has been filed in the past, e.g.  and . The first of those does not address my point because it dates from before even the total tallies on the comment flags were displayed. The second is downright incorrect according to  from a few months later. Besides that the answers in above references seem no longer applicable or otherwise suboptimal, e.g. :  Then check the places where you had flagged comments: If the comment disappeared, your flag was (most likely) deemed helpful. If the comment is still there, but there is no flag icon when you hover over it, your flag is still pending for review. If the comment is still there and the flag icon is shown on hover, your flag has been declined.  suggests that I keep track of which posts I flagged. I think it gives worthless advice; memorizing things should be left with computers and not clutter my more severely limited head-space.  Edit -- 17-05-2013: I have since localized three further questions (,  and ) with basically the same suggestion. None of these received any response from official channels. Any particular reason for this? I understand comments are &quot;ephemeral&quot; &quot;second-class citizens&quot;, but what's wrong with more feedback on one's efforts to help the community in this aspect?  Edit -- 29-06-2013: The update that enables this has gone live on all of StackExchange. This request may therefore be marked . Your work is much appreciated, SE devs!
88534
Looking at the flags in the moderator queue, I noticed the following automatic flag.    Clicking on the &quot;review task&quot; link I see the following.    The votes are actually one for deletion and one for &quot;looks good.&quot; Such situation should not be reported as &quot;more delete votes than 'looks good'&quot;; either the text should be fixed to not indicate &quot;more&quot; reviews, or a flag should not be raised in this case.
72101
Few arguments against it:   Pressing the flag button doesn't mean actually submitting it (as in every test/form). There might be an unknown duplicate, if you assume it's the first post (as you were told) it might be worthy to flag it. You might want to look if someone else thought it was duplicate by "making half way" to flagging it.   Why pressing the flag button makes you fail an audit? I think it shouldn't.  Edit:  The implementation difficulty (fake flagging UI) and the tips about how avoid failing (and reviewing!) by skipping the answer adds some insight, but still doesn't answer the question why it's not a valid review.    Moreover, I would like to add one more,  describes a reviewer that failed an audit while trying to flag a question as off topic. The question was clearly off topic, and still after 1300 views no one flagged it.
17713
I checked my  to see whether I can find something similar to the main-site flag-history for chat-flags, but didn't find anything. I recently had the (dis)pleasure of regularly having to deal with a user, that has been deleted multiple times. Whenever they show up (with the same nick-name) again I have to flag them again. I'd like to get an overview of how often I had to do that, and whether my flags were helpful for the moderators. As such I propose the implementation of a flag-history as it is already in place for the main-site for chat-flags, that request moderator intervention. To be completely clear I am not talking about the 10k user flags, which are acted on in a matter of sometimes seconds with instantly visible results, but about moderator attention flags from this menu:
55514
I'm out of close votes again today. But I still have 100 flags. How do the mods feel about me flagging questions for closure, even though I would be able to VtC myself, if I weren't already out of votes?  Related: How do the mods feel about me flagging a question for closure (a super obvious code-dump, for example), even if I have CVs remaining, in an attempt to preserve my close votes for less clear cut close decisions?
6583
are pretty cool... You get a birds-eye view of activity on the site, a &quot;dashboard&quot; view of what's happening. Some of the individual tools haven't scaled particularly well with Stack Overflow's growth, but the concept behind them is still sound: we trust you to enough to be a bee watcher now.  ...and then there's . What a let-down! Once upon a time, this queue contained spam and offensive flags, which one might reasonably assume were important enough to put in front of the more trusted members of the site. Re-flagging them brought them that much closer to deletion, while editing them offered salvation to some hapless author. Nowadays, it's a bunch of Not an Answer flags and a smattering of assorted cruft. 10K users can't even vote to delete these; only 20K users have that privilege. Re-flagging them does nothing but increase their priority in the moderator flag queue, where they frequently outrank more pressing issues;  has . Also, it's , and the behavior has diverged far enough from that of the moderator flag queue on which it is based that it has become an active hindrance to further development of the tooling there. Worst of all, we have  that's available to anyone with the editing privilege. It even has logic built in to prioritize answers likely to be deleted for users with . It's like we gave you a car for your 10th birthday, and then replaced it with a rusty bicycle when you turned 16. It was a nice idea, but it has outlived its usefulness. Proposed changes The /tools/flagged route goes away. Period. No replacement. The rest of the 10K tools stick around as informational pages. Not an Answer flags go into /review/low-quality, . Then we beef up the Low Quality review process to make better use of more experienced reviewers and solve this whole &quot;declined / helpful / disputed&quot; flag debate once and for all:  Effective # of reviews required == ReviewsRequired + # of applicable flags (where ReviewsRequired is 2 on Stack Overflow, 1 everywhere else). So 1 VLQ or NAA flag means EffectiveReviewsRequired=3. LQ tasks are not dequeued until one of the following conditions is met:  Post is edited from within review. Outcome: flags are marked &quot;helpful&quot; (current behavior). Post accumulates 3 Delete votes (can only happen when post scores &lt;= 0 and reviewers have &gt;= 20K rep). Outcome: post is deleted, flags are marked &quot;helpful&quot;. Task accumulates EffectiveReviewsRequired &quot;Looks Good&quot; reviews. Outcome: if the number of (Recommend)Delete reviews is &gt;= the number of Looks Good reviews, mark flags &quot;disputed&quot; and raise DisputedLowQuality mod flag. Otherwise, mark flags &quot;declined&quot;. Task accumulates 6* RecommendDelete + Delete reviews. Outcome: mark flags &quot;helpful&quot;. If the post scores &gt; 0 then raise DisputedLowQuality mod flag, else just delete post (current behavior).   As under the current system, flags on posts that've already completed one full review cycle without being deleted should skip /review and go directly into the mod queue.  End result  Flags get handled faster, more accurately, and with less wasted effort from 10K reviewers. Moderators are free to focus on situations that can't be handled by the community - the ! Developers are free to make enhancements to the moderator tooling without having to work around 10K user restrictions.  Questions Am I forgetting anything here? I haven't really spent much time in the 10K flag queue since back when it was filled with spam flags and therefore useful - is there a use-case that you depend on that would be lost with its removal? Post 'em below. *: on Stack Overflow, only .