I see a spammy post every now and then in the Low Quality Posts review queue, but there isn't a relevant comment I can leave the spammer. Therefore, I have to choose 'No comment Needed'. Can we have yet another choice?  This post is spam Flag this post as spam  Currently I have to press the link button on the side, go the the post, mark it as spam, then go back to the queue and mark it for deletion. Quite a hassle, don't you think?
63581
I guess this is an additional to previous requests like  and .  But I just came across  review item, and was unable to flag it as spam.  edit: Since I posted this, the item has been removed (deleted) here is a screenshot:
54363
I was peacefully reading the Gaming.SE blog, when suddenly, GASP I . I diligently look for a way to get rid of it... but found none. , so I'm doing a feature request. Ah, also, if someone is kind enough to remove that spam, thanks! D:
36226
Low-rep users can't leave comments. This leads to many users   While the rationale behind this limitation is understandable, seen from the outside, it looks  inane and bureaucratic. New users often have useful information to bring to the table. That information is often enough destroyed through deletion,  or has to be manually converted to a comment by a moderator.  How about, experimentally for a month or so, removing the limitation, allowing comments from (registered) new users, and countering the threat of garbage comments with    A comment review queue for low-rep users' comments A lowered flagging threshold for low-rep users' comments (say, 2 flags instead of 3 or whatever is required right now)   After all, features like  show that there's value to be gained from the input of the countless visitors who end up on Stack Overflow through Google, but are never going to become active members of the community. So why not use it?
117370
On the one hand, I see very few posts in the review queue when I visit.  On the other hand, I see a lot of pretty awful first posts sitting on the front page.  This leads me to suspect that robo-reviewers are blowing through the queue.  Given how empty the queue is, could you please increase the number of people who have to check in before a post leaves the queue?  Of course, some honey-pot solution to detect and disable the auto-clickers would be even better.
11131
It came up in chat that a spammer's account needed destroyed; their posts had been deleted but their name (which was offensive) still showed up on the front page as updates to posts and their user account hadn't been deleted.   Someone in chat wanted this fixed but there "wasn't anything to flag" so they complained in chat rather than flagging, which would have directly notified moderators. For future reference how should I tell users to handle a situation like this? Just flag a related post with the "Other" flag reason and explain the situation? What if there's no "related" post?
91954
This 100 points bonty  was flagged with      no effort is shown at all    and declined   how can we other way make SO better?  I have downvoted this question, but cannot delete it.  Is this question really ok?
22700
Recently on SO, I've been noticing a lot of link-only comments on (admittedly bad) questions.  The typical comment looks like this:        Now, my first instinct is to flag the comment as "not constructive" or "too chatty", but the fact is that the blog post linked to is actually good advice.  On the whole though, the way it is being wielded like a blunt instrument comes across as—at best—lazy arrogance in my opinion and is not adding anything to the network.  Can we ban "What have you tried?" links like we did with ?  An example:    To be clear, I'm not proposing that we stop people asking for clarification or expecting askers to explain themselves properly. I just don't think comments like these are particularly constructive.
121502
This came up in the mod chat earlier today. Would it be possible to add RSS feed support for the /review page?    This makes zero sense now that /review has been completely redone, and the jury's out on whether or not this ever made sense. So I get to status-decline my own request. :)
107672
Somebody asked the following :    Clearly this is just a troll post so I (and other users) flagged it as spam. The spam flag was subsequently disputed (which I think simply means that a moderator rejected it):    Huh? Puzzled, I took another look at the list of possible flagging reasons:     I am flagging this question because         it is spam   This question is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant, but promotional.   it is offensive, abusive, or hate speech   This question contains content that a reasonable person would deem inappropriate for   respectful discourse.   it is a duplicate...   This question has been asked before and already has an answer.   it should be closed for another reason...   This question does not meet this site's standards and should be closed.   it is very low quality   This question has severe formatting or content problems. This question is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.   other (needs ♦ moderator attention)   This question needs a moderator's attention. Please describe exactly what's wrong.      Of these, only a few are applicable at all: “spam”, “should be closed for another reason”, “low quality” and “requires moderator attention”.  But:   it shouldn’t be closed (it has no value – it should be deleted), it’s not “low quality” (the description seems to fit actual, albeit bad, questions), and it doesn’t require moderator attention (I certainly didn’t want to bother a mod with this worthless post).   So I still think “spam” is the most fitting reason. Maybe it would help to have a more apt reason “troll post”, or maybe we could explicitly subsume this under one of the other points?
33230
I reviewed  in the First Posts queue.  Which said      i changed it to 'localsystem' and done. thanks much   So it obviously was a potential low quality post. But sometimes such answers can be spot on, so I checked it out, better safe than sorry. I turned out the post had been deleted. Great! So I clicked "No action needed". Then I got this:    You can imagine I felt "wrongfully accused".  I think that deleted posts should not be used for review audits, because the meaning of "No action needed" is not clear in this context.
119328
For the nth time this month, I've written a considered, thought-out comment to help guide the poster of an off-topic question to a more useful resource - only to find that after all my thought and typing it was simply a review audit, and no-one would benefit from that advice.  Please could selecting "add a comment" be made to pop up the "this is an audit" box, rather than waiting until I've written the comment?
49816
I've seen so many should-be-a-comment &quot;edits&quot; or &quot;answers&quot; in the review queues by new users, and it's pretty obvious that to them this was the only way to somehow interact with a question due to their lack of allowance to leave a comment. And sometimes (just sometimes) this comment would contribute something useful. So it's a shame to waste reviewers' time to first figure out that a suggested &quot;edit&quot; / &quot;answer&quot; should actually be a comment and then not exactly having tools to turn the former into an actual comment. If the new user would instead have had the possibility to clearly indicate that they wanted to leave a comment which would then be put into a simple &quot;comments (by low-rep users)&quot; review queue, where reviewers could maybe even leave one of the (more specific) automated comments à la &quot;You should ask this as a new question&quot; (where new question might even not only link to the &quot;ask question&quot; site but put the users comment into the title or body). And until approval the comment would by default by hidden by a &quot;on hold&quot; line that only higher-rep users, say &gt;500, could toggle to view (and vote to approve directly in place). This is typical practice in many blogs' comments, and I think since we're community reviewing anyway this might be improve the hijacking situation. edit Note that by design those automated comments would not need to trigger a notification to the post's OP but only to the commenter. Whether the un-reviewed comment should already trigger a notification to the OP or not is a different question. I propose not, since the obvious once-in-a-while spam comment would be easier detected by a reviewer who is currently concentrating on specifically determining the validity of a comment. edit2 As noted in  these auto-replies should not clutter the original post - once a comment has been determined &quot;Actually I want to ask a new question&quot; they (and the reply) won't show up below the post except for the original commenter who will also be notified if they registered.  In summary:  Low-rep user posts a comment -&gt; Below the post there will be a &quot;1 comment under review&quot; link and that comment will be added to the comment-review queue (see images below). No notification will be triggered for the OP, since the high likelihood of an unjustified comment was the reason for comments originally not being post-able by just anyone If a reviewer approves the comment, it will show up like any usual comment and now a notification to the OP (and @replied-to users) will be sent If a reviewer rejects the comment (with an optional reason as reply), it won't be shown below the original post as &quot;under review&quot; anymore. It, together with the reply, will be visible to the original commenter who will be notified, but no one else will be bothered by it edit3 As per : The commenter will not be able to post further comments until their comment is either reviewed or self-deleted. As , a negative review/flag should refute that user's ability to comment any more (or reduce a very low contingent of unreviewed comments allowed)
6634
I have been reading Stack Exchange for years - mostly not logged in, and have never posted (this is my first). I'm simply not very talkative, and very good at googling.  Recently a few occasions have come up when I've wanted to comment on a question.  I wanted either to ask for, or provide, clarification which did not warrant a new answer.  How do I gain enough reputation to comment without:   asking questions which have already been answered or that I can figure out on my own, or posting my comment like as an answer (i.e. being  rude)?
121164
I happened upon  question, where the questioner commented on every answer with "I'd love an up vote!"    Is it correct to flag such clutter, perhaps as not constructive / off-topic, or is there a better way to correct users that beg for up votes (and similar behavior) via comments.
48851
In  the asker is apparently carrying out an Ant v. Make research smackdown.  To me this looks like spam, but seems harmless.  Should anything be done?  Is there a policy on canvassing the community in this way?  Is it allowed?  As an aside, it seems like the OP would get more views with some language tags, rather than what's on there now...
82557
I've been avidly checking the review page on StackOverflow, and I am a little curious as to how posts are allocated to reviewers.  Obviously, being a relatively new member, I only have access to new post and late answer reviews.  The queue is usually empty for me, but then I will notice some new questions from apparently first time posters on the new questions page. Also, while sometimes 2 questions are in the queue, it often says I am finished after completing one review.  Could anyone elaborate on how the system distributes reviews?
27862
I awoke this morning to a spam flag on a site I moderate, and noticed this when I went to read the post.    Notice answered&lt;/a&gt;, which I imagine isn't meant to have the &lt;/a&gt; there.  I also confirmed that this displays asked&lt;/a&gt; for other types of flags (namely, closed without comment).   I looked around for a duplicate of this but can't seem to find it, so maybe it's a recent change?