Seriously, almost all of the flags I get are in the JavaScript room. . In case you are tired, it leads to the "Ask a question" screen. I don't care about these silly flags, really. But I wondered if there is something we can do to make the flags more pertinent and save them for when things really are obscene. If I am right and the majority of flags come from a certain place (and assuming most are dismissed) should this chat be closed?  Of course they could go to another chat and similar things happen. I'm not sure how to know what users or how often they are flagging but it seems to be like "the chat room who cried wolf". If nothing else, I would like to bring attention to those who are flagging there. If the chat is that bad then make it a gallery or stop visiting it.  Edit  OK, I don't really think the chat should be closed. This was a poorly-formed question from the beginning, because that wasn't my main point of the post. It was more to get a discussion about why it seems, at least to me, that most of the flags (at least lately) appear to come from there and if there is anything to be done about it.
124177
Yes, I know the topic has been discussed before. I know that Meta already has threads that complain about how flagging doesn't work. I wanted to give a practical example.  Today, a  came in to the  chat and asked the :  Hey guys, as soon as I embed javascript, all my html elements are gone. Even if the script is empty!? ...Can anyone help out? The example is really minimalistic &lt;script type='text/javascript' src=&quot;http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.3/jquery.min.js&quot;/&gt; &lt;script type='text/javascript' src=&quot;script.js&quot;/&gt; These lines make everything vanish. script.js is empty! I use google chrome and the file is on localhost  Some context:  The JS room encourages people to come and ask questions that are too small/badly put for main. The room encourages people to just ask questions rather than ask to ask. In fact we even have a bot that prompts users to just ask if they have a question whenever they join. The above user has a good Q to A ratio having 1K rep in the main site and over 80 answers. The user has no negative context in the chat. No previous offenses or anything like that.  That message got 7 flags  Had a mod (ThiefMaster) not been present and invalidated those flags in time that user would have probably been suspended from the chat. This is bad, it sends the wrong message and it is very rude. Now, some other rooms don't allow people to just come and ask questions right away so maybe users from other rooms validated the flag. Maybe users thought he was being rude? I don't know. I do know that we don't want this sort of negative atmosphere in the JS room (and I'm sure other useful rooms such as PHP don't want it either), we have enough on our hands trying to maintain a community while helping people joining and handing with vamps/trolls. Possible solutions:  Drop spam/offensive flags altogether. Make spam/offensive flags room specific for big enough (tm) rooms. Give room owners just the ability to invalidate spam/offensive flags.
41614
This is normally what I see when flagging a post:   Which then provides the following options:    I have come across this problem before. Where I have wanted to flag a question, as not belonging here, but only have limited options.    When this happens, I use a custom flag and write in the reason, but am not happy doing so.  Is this a bug?   What is the best thing to do?
30327
For example,  was initially posted with horrible formatting, and I mis-read the question. Thinking it was asking something different, I flagged as belonging on .  When I realized my mistake, I felt it would be nice to remove the flag and reduce the moderators' queue. Since this feature does not exist, should a delete flag option be added to the user Flagging History page?  Without nit-picking over the exact text, I propose something similar to:    This option would of course only appear next to flags that have not been evaluated by a moderator.
76374
Took a few seconds to find how to get back to chat on SO. I quickly found that it was hiding inside the StackExchange drop down along with Blog and Log out. Having these links inside the "site switcher" seems a tad out of place and calls for concern personally.   Any ideas for an alternative to these objects location?
89926
We have a few cases of chat accounts remaining without valid parent account:  and  for example. What should mods do when that happens:  delete the chat account notify the SE team so they can reattach or clean it up leave it as is: it's a normal situation
25937
When someone flags a message in chat all 10k+ users in chat get a little blue bubble to vote on. It shows up in the upper left hand corner of your gravatar (which is in the bottom left of the page).  When someone flags a message and it shows up, if I wait for a second to click on it, and then click on it, and it has already been handled, it shows the message  "There are no flags to display."  In the past, after showing this message, the blue (1) would disappear. However, lately it has not been going away and requires a page refresh in order to remove. Can this be fixed?  This issue is addressed here:  from September 12th 2012. But since it is still occurring 10 months later, I believe the cause is different.
111422
I was just reviewing the  and I came across  and flag description:    The answer has been flagged as very low quality and then it also has a flag that says:     It's not an answer, or at least not to this question, however this was accepted instead of the real answer. – May 7 '12 at 5:53  × 4   Now I am in the review queue a lot and I don't recall ever seeing this before, is this an other flag that is being shown?  What is this unusual description that I am seeing?
104229
I flagged something as spam, then was only 90% sure I'd done so, so I clicked the flag link again to check. It showed me this:    I had, of course, only raised the spam flag, not the offensive/abusive/hate flag, so the latter probably shouldn't be saying I did.    Ah, this may be a duplicate, I didn't search enough:        And if so, it's been around a while.
22416
One of my sites has a persistent problem with comments -- chatty comments, proto-answers in comments, big long conversations in comments.  I suspect we're not the only ones with this problem.  While a conversation between two people will eventually trigger the "hey, you should do this in chat" notice, and while moderators can move comments to chat (after an auto-flag is raised), I'm looking for something that regular users can do, and sooner.  We currently ask people to , but the process is a little cumbersome:   You're on the site, on a specific post, and see a comment thread that's getting away from what comments are for. You leave the page or launch a new tab, navigate to chat, and find your way to "create a room".  You might or might not give this room a helpful name. Optionally you cut/paste existing comments there.  I include this theoretical step for the sake of completeness; it's not really a reasonable thing to expect. You go back to the post and write a comment linking to the chat room.   But the other commenters might just ignore you, might not even have privileges to chat, and have no easy way to move things there.  What can we do to make this easier?  It'd be great if we could at least create the room (with a canonical name pattern) and auto-generate the comment containing the link, all without leaving the post page.  A harder question is what to do about existing comments; we probably don't want any random user to be able to move a whole set of comments to chat, but there's something to be said for copying existing comments to the new chat room and then raising a moderator flag on the post so mods can review and decide whether to purge those comments.  (Ones that ask for clarification should remain, as usual, hence the need for human review.)  What can we do to make this process easier?
5793
Why is the option very low quality  sometimes hidden in the flag menu?  About a moment ago, I saw a post of very low quality on Stack Overflow, and I wanted to flag it as very low quality but this option was not in the flag menu.   Why?
66080
Every once in a while I take a look at the tools page and see a high number of flags - like right now.  And there is indeed some pretty spammy stuff in there.  It's fairly self-evident what to do with flagged questions, I think - just vote to close/delete if the flags are in fact accurate.  But what about flagged answers?  It doesn't really seem like there's much we can do about those.  Should we:   Flag them again, hoping to bump the answer down and/or get it auto-deleted? Flag for (real) moderator attention, i.e. to confirm "yes this is really spam"? Just leave them alone (assuming that a proper mod will find it soon)?   Also - is there any particular action we should be taking if a post is erroneously flagged - i.e. somebody got annoyed that a question wasn't marked CW?  Some guidelines on how best to use this feature would be appreciated.
114028
I came across  today. In reading the answer and the comments it turns out that the issue was just a simple typo that the OP made. So that being the case I decided that this question probably needs to be closed since this will not be helpful to any future vistors. However, in looking at the flag reasons (I don't have the close ability yet), I don't see a flag that would be appropriate.   I know some of these options might still be influx because of the . However, until a different off-topic flag description is created, how should this be flagged? Or should this not be flagged at all and just allowed to live on or wait for a user with close votes to use a custom off-topic close option?
16332
Like always I hang around in Stack Overflow's chatrooms. Today, someone posted a link to his new "reloaded" user profile.  Along the lines I read in Arabic "god is a pig". So I asked him to remove it:     Me: I have a lot of respect towards you because of your knowledge but what you wrote there in Arabic is offensive. Could you remove it please?   OP: if it were in English, would it be equally offensive?   I will write it in Dutch because you ask it so kindly.   Me: yeah, I mean what's your goal? You're just seeding hatred   OP: It is an experiment.   After that, the user changed it to Dutch.  My question is: are such statements acceptable by Stack Exchange's standards? If not, should I flag one of his posts like stated ? If yes, could you state why?  My answers to possible questions:   This happened on SO, why don't you post it on MSO?   This happened on SO but I think it's applicable to all SE sites.  Why didn't you link the user or the chat conversation?   I want the user to remain anonymous unless he or she chooses to reveal him/her self. I will give the user a link to this question  Why do you care?   I find it offensive, not only to my religion but to any religion that believes in god. I posted this question to know what you guys and girls think about this. I live by the rules, so if it's acceptable by SE then so be it and I won't bother you again.  If you don't like it then move on.   I know that this is not a mosque/church/temple and that swearing  to a certain degree. But I don't see the point in insulting god, a religion or a race in a public profile. More over, it's not even built on arguments.
24691
I have the moderator privileges on .  Even though it's quite rare that flags appear over there, it is still quite annoying that once I have done my job with a flag and therefore cannot do anything else with it, the flag in the top bar remains there. Why do I have to keep seeing that flag when in fact, I can't do anything about it?  Images, with free-hand circles:  A flag exists in the notification bar:    I have already done my part of the flag handling:    And yet the flag remains in the notification bar.
91813
We have incidents where we get 10+ flags from the same room in rapid succession. This happens on multiple occasions and we have reason to believe it's a single user doing this.  I don't think it's of value to allow a single user to flag more then n messages in a small time period.  If we could have some anti-flag spam measures put in place, then that would be great.
23382
Earlier today I flagged this  using the following flag option:     Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead,  and what has been done so far to solve it.   If you look at the edit history, shown below, I interpreted the original post's title and body to mean that they were asking for another utility, like SlowCheetah, which is why I flagged it with the rule I stated above.  In addition, I try to do my best to also inform the user that their post does not meet the standards of the site by leaving a comment as you can see on the post.  The poster acknowledged the feedback and updated their question, rendering my flag now invalid.    Ultimately, my flag was declined, which harms me because as we all know declined flags work against a SO user's total flag count:  Reference:      How many flags do I have?      When you start out, you are allotted 10 flags per day. This number may increase to up to 100 flags per day:      You get one bonus flag per 2000 reputation.      You are awarded additional bonus flags when you flag correctly - one bonus flag for every ten net helpful flags (helpful flags minus declined flags).   I only have 8 declined flags, and IIRC, 4 of those are because of situations just like this. So is it fair to negatively affect a member's total flag count, when the flag at the time of submission was accurate?  As such, I propose a new flag status like "Inapplicable', which when used does not affect total flag count, or something similar to this, so that situations like this do not negatively affect a user's flag count.   I understand I still have to have faith that a reviewer or moderator will see the post for what it was at the time the flag was submitted, but at least by adding this option, you provide reviewers and moderator's a means to take action in a fair manner.  I want to continue flagging questions and helping posters as much as I can, I just don't think it's fair to members that spend a lot of time flagging and helping members, to risk reducing their flag count just because of a shortfall of the system and because, let's be honest here, not all moderator's can act at the same level of objectivity, we all have differing viewpoints and interpretations.  I suppose this bothers me more than other issues I've come across on the site because I flag posts to help keep the site focused and free of poor posts and yet receive no reputation for these types of efforts.  The only positive thing you can reap are a few badges, &lt;sarcasm&gt;yay!&lt;/sarcasm&gt; or a negatively impacted flag count.  Just doesn't seem fair IMHO when my affects contribute to increasing the quality of posts which is just as important as contributing a quality answer IMO.  And to add, this isn't the first time this has happened to me and many other members of the site.  And yet, nothing has been done about it. Perhaps as a community we start spending a little bit more time little details like this to help keep people feeling positive about their efforts, especially those that aren't measured by reputation.  Thank you for your time,  Cheers.
100543
I know that this type of question was asked many time, but I didn't find answers related to my specific questions anywhere. At  it is explained about disputed flags of types NAA, VLQ, offensive and spam, by there is no mention about off-topic flags.  I found explanation that after triage review flags may get disputed, but it says that close votes are not affected.  So here is my questions:   In which cases exactly off-topic flag gets disputed? Also I have disputed flags in my profile near the questions that are actually [on hold], why my flag not appears helpful? Recently I marked  as off-topic, and now my flag is disputed. Is that mean that flag was inappropriate and question should remain in the developers SO? Does flag counts as helpful if it describes the reason to close not very accurate? For example if I marked question as off-topic, but it was put on hold as too broad