Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Bringing bad posts to the attention of curators, not just moderators - flagging vs closure reasons

Post

Bringing bad posts to the attention of curators, not just moderators - flagging vs closure reasons

+2
−0

As things stand, the options for flagging a question seem rather spartan:

Image of flagging dialog

The dialog has a header which reads "Why does this post require moderator attention?"; the options are "it's spam", "it's rude", "needs author's attention", "is a duplicate", and "other reason"

We have:

  • two options for actual abusive use of the site software
  • an option for duplicates
  • "needs author's attention", which to my understanding isn't actually a flag at all and instead redirects to the comment interface
  • "other"

On the other hand, the current closure options (for those who have the privilege to vote to close) apparently look like (credit to Monica for the screenshot, from the Discord):

Image of closure dialog

The dialog has a header which reads "Why should this post be closed?"; the options are "duplicate", "off topic", "unclear", "too generic", "not constructive" and "outdated or superseded"

Aside from "duplicate", there's one more option for linking to another Q&A, and then four things that... all seem to me like major sub-categories of "needs author's attention". (Well, except for "off topic", which is normally not fixable.) I want to emphasize here: posts that "need the author's attention", at least in the main Q&A section of a site, inherently should be closed. This is a claim that the question either can't properly be answered, or is not a suitable part of a reference Q&A, for reasons that only the author can address. Therefore, nobody should be trying to write an answer - but we know from the results in other places that people eventually will try.

It's better if we prepare for this well in advance, because the results of being taken off guard are evidently truly awful (and cannot be fixed with even years of post-mortem discussion).

I have three related purposes in mind with this post.

  1. I propose that the flagging options should explicitly incorporate all appropriate closure reasons, not just duplicates. (There's nothing really special about duplicates, anyway. The author can even fix that problem in many cases.) It should also make these actually function as flags, in addition to prompting for optional feedback, because they are logical reasons to close the question.

  2. I propose that users with the vote-on-holds and curation abilities - not just moderators - should be notified in some way about flags that relate to closure reasons (including duplicates), and I'm looking for suggestions about how this should work. I don't think (for now!) that any number of flags should automatically close or delete a post; but for people who can cast votes, it's clearly better if the rest of us can help focus their attention on what's most likely to need attention. This also entails that the "Why does this post require moderator attention?" header requires rethinking.

  3. I'd like to open the floor to reconsider (vs. what others have tried), categories of good reasons to close questions - things that every community reasonably ought to agree is a proper closure reason in principle, in accordance with the vision of community Q&A that Codidact puts forward - so that community curators can be notified of issues, come to consensus, and relieve pressure on moderators. (When I originally posted this, I was unaware that there was already a list - because I naively assumed that the flagging options would reproduce that list. However, I still see room for improvement.)

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

2 comment threads

FYI, curators can see certain flags on the posts themselves, but they don't get notifications like mo... (4 comments)
Bringing attention (2 comments)
FYI, curators can see certain flags on the posts themselves, but they don't get notifications like mo...
Monica Cellio‭ wrote about 1 year ago

FYI, curators can see certain flags on the posts themselves, but they don't get notifications like mods do and maybe that's something we should improve. "Mod attention" flags go only to mods/admins, but, for example, curators can see spam flags. Or at least that's the intention -- we also still need to adjust abilities so it's easier for curators to rise, which should be part of this larger discussion about abilities.

Karl Knechtel‭ wrote about 1 year ago

As a separate matter, I would more generally appreciate it if the "abilities" interface were more explicit and forthcoming about what people with a particular ability can do, and how things look different for them on the site.

Karl Knechtel‭ wrote about 1 year ago

Yes, but I hadn't read it quite carefully enough. That said, it still doesn't offer quite the level of detail I was hoping for. I might try to be more precise about this in a separate post, once it bothers me enough again.