“Nonsense” is somewhere between “not an answer” and “spam”. It’s not spam. People flag it as both.  Can we have a “nonsense” flag reason, please? It would alleviate the (minor) confusion, and it could also get dealt with faster than “not an answer” or “other”.  e.g.     oranges oranges oranges oranges oranges hi   Apparently VLQ already covers this, though.
120957
MERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR &lt;3      doingdoingdoingdoingdoingdoingdoingdoingdoing.      9.... YEAH baby.      Shash. BOSH. :))   What this post would normally receive on its own is 8 "not an answer" flags, 6 "very low quality" flags and perhaps a couple "moderator attention" flags, when the community could very simply and easily have deleted the post on its own through half as many spam or offensive flags.  "But badp! We can't flag as spam because it's not promotional content! We can't flag as offensive because it's not abusive, hate speech or offensive!"  Please consider addressing this so that it's possible for the community to delete these posts from orbit on their own. Stack Overflow and pals may get away with it thanks to the amount of trusted users it enjoys, but that's really the exception here.  Gaming's average moderator response this month was over 5 hours. Clearly such posts shouldn't be warranted 5 hours' worth of lifetime. This crap needs to go, and I'd very much rather see the community throwing it away rather than just planting a sign on it saying "please remove it." (Especially since you don't actually have to get your hands dirty!)  Those posts are a red flag problem - posts that need to go, and go fast, and be inflicted upon as few people as possible. The solution needs to be a red flag, not a yellow flag where moderators have to apply policies and leave comments and otherwise exercise judgement.  Two possible ways to give a red flag solution to a red flag problem:   Explicitly incorporate clearly meaningless, contentless, garbled, garbage posts in the existing spam flag reason description, matching the definition of spam provided by wikipedia: "unsolecited, unwarranted mass posts." No one solecited or warranted gibberish on this site. Make the clearly meaningless, contentless, garbled, garbage posts its own "red" flag reason, stacking together with offensive and spam posts for all practical purposes.
121310
I flagged  as very low quality on the grounds that it was an answer consisting only of links, and was notified:     very low quality – 18 hours ago   declined - a moderator reviewed your   flag, but found no evidence to support it   However, I now see that the answer has been "deleted by Robert Harvey♦ 12 hours ago"  What did I get wrong here? I thought link-only answers were discouraged? Also, the fact that the answer was deleted, suggests that I did not get it wrong.   It is getting somewhat confusing working out what to flag and what not to flag.
28369
It seems the spamfilter on the "Help and Improvement" queue has some problem. From  (from the review of  question).  I think,   Well, "there are" happens quite often in spams, also often in hams :-) Maybe in the case of a 3k+ user it is not really probable he would try to spam.   On my tries it seems, the first word of the edited message is considered always spammy.
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.
81016
The system should search posts for the word "please" in proximity to the phrase "don't close" or "do not close", and if found together disable the close link for the following reasons:   They asked nicely They knew enough about the system to understand that posts can be closed, and thus are experienced enough to know when their own question is perfectly valid and reasonable   Please consider this question an opportunity to consider the issue carefully.  I'll convert it to a feature request when abs(votes) &gt; 100, until then it'll merely be a discussion.
28995
Is something wrong with StackOverflow's spam filter? Recently there have been huge numbers of spam topics related to football streaming. They have all been spam flagged and deleted but there are more getting posted all the time, I just flagged another 6 or so a few minutes ago. This has been going on for around 3 days now with these topics getting constantly posted over and over again in the  tag.
19005
While reviewing the 10k queue just now, I noticed that someone has evidently searched for and flagged self-accepted answers like        What is the proper way to handle ? Should they be flagged as "not an answer", or should they be left alone?  On the one hand, these answers obviously make no attempt to answer the question. On the other hand, these answers may imply that "I'm no longer looking for an answer — don't bug me."
103595
First time I had to use the offensive flag. The answers were obviously offending/spam but it took quite a while to delete them. I was interested in how long it actually took, because an off-topic question posted later got closed much faster.  Instead of finding this information, I noticed the offensive (and also spam) flag's description is formatted very different. It also contains less information.      "flagged as" seems redundant - I know that I flagged it, and I'm on the flag summary page after all. The normal flagging doesn't tell me that. It is Helpful, but a normal flags are helpful. (fixed) There is no information about the time I flagged it. The normal flag's "helpful" text contains a tooltip showing the time of it's acceptance, the offensive/spam flags don't.   I like that it's red, but I think the format should be more like that of the other flags. It should show the time somewhere.
121732
I spotted a  (10k-only by now) and when I went to flag it, the flag dialog told me that I'd already flagged it as VLQ:    The thing is, I'd never seen this post before. And a look at the flag history in my user profile confirms that I haven't flagged a post since yesterday:    Certainly, well before the 2015-02-04 05:36:21Z time of Mr. Miracle's post.  I was able to reproduce this on SO from the VLQ review queue: when you're presented with an answer, click on link at the right side of the page, then click flag. You get the "you have already raised this type of flag" message on either the "it is not an answer" or "it is very low quality" options, I gather depending on the original flag that pushed the post into the VLQ queue.
58535
Is it still a thing? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it.   Ask Ubuntu: 264 Meta SE: 81 Linguistics: 56 Area 51: 51 (spooky!) Super User: 33 Unix &amp; Linux: 3 Stack Overflow | User Experience | Bicyles | Video Production | Music: Theory &amp; Practice | Retrocomputing | Genealogy &amp; Family History | Joomla: 1
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?
30345
I recently flagged a post on SO as "Unclear what you're asking". Afterwards, for whatever reason, I clicked flag again and found this:    Is there any reason it says I've raised a duplicate flag too when I'm positive I have not? Is this a bug? The question, as of 2:56 PM UTC, 11 September, 2013, has only existed for 26 minutes and the flag doesn't exist in my flag history:    Note: There are several similar questions:       The first was never answered and the second is unrelated as it appears the person asking did, in fact, raise the flag they assumed they hadn't raised.
110697
Can we implement the low quality flag to be like the abuse or spam flags. So if a certain number of low quality flags are made  on a post (whether it be a questions or an answer) the post is deleted?  This would also relieve *close vote and delete vote queues. *which is a much discussed topic.        related:
49993
I thought that this question  was a duplicate (sorry, as a noob meta user I can only post one link, please follow my comment on that question), but other folks don't seem to agree.  If two questions are phrased differently, but describe the same underlying problem (and therefore have the same answers) are they not same question?  Thanks, from a puzzled Binary Worrier :(  Related:
96474
I know this seems like a good idea, but this far into the game you should be able to tell from network behavior that I'm not a spammer…  I had a compound question. I broke it up because breaking it up was possible—it probably isn't even necessary in that it wouldn't otherwise get closed. Now I doubt either of my questions will be easily answered, but it stinks when you want to run (irl) to have to wait on a question timer which means posting one at a later time. Can't we fight spammers more effectively in a different way?  You know it's my intent to ask the question (or you'd give me a captcha). You also know that historically my questions have been   Can't we find a way to make this not stupid?
120702
Along the lines of the discussion (poll) on , what is the policy for them in chat?  In my mind, there is a very large difference between proper SE site content (posts and comments) and chat.  Chat far more fluid than the "fixed content" of the site, and the occasional expletive here and there rapidly fades into the past.  True, there's a transcript for chat, but one needs to go reaching into the past.  Also, just to be explicit, I'm simply talking about vocabulary, not intent or context.  Saying "F*** these g**d*** if statements" is wholly apart from "Abc's mother looks like a coprolite"  This is part of the   , where people in different rooms see a flagged message containing profanity, and without context reach far too easily for the "valid" button.  If we don't care so much about the language as the idea, that would go a long way (people could instead click "not sure", not that they would, but that's another matter).
80643
I know how disputed flags work. Today, I reviewed a "not an answer" flag and marked it as invalid.   I've later seen a disputed message with this reason:     invalid flag         disputed - a moderator reviewed your flag, but found no evidence to   support it   Given that disputed flags are in the ,  Is this message applicable only to my flag or is this message also for the original flagger?  Or put otherwise, are all disputed flags now shown this message (or similar decline reason)?  I've run out of flags for today to test this further.