1
\$\begingroup\$

Well, it certainly isn't very important, but I need some clarification, so I don't make the same mistake again, if I made one.

I flagged this answer as "low quality": https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/398999/107479. The flag has been declined with a indication:

flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer.

Well, I agree with the rationale, but the thing is: I didn't flag because it was wrong or inaccurate. I can't even tell if it is wrong or inaccurate because I didn't understand what the poster really meant. And that is why I flagged.

So maybe someone can tell me what:

Using higher rated voltage as specified on ESR capacitors wil increase/decrease internal resistance of the capacitor

really means?

\$\endgroup\$

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4
\$\begingroup\$

I declined the flag, and yes it wasn't an obvious choice, many others may disagree. My rationale has been well explained by pipe and Olin: it was not a good answer, but nothing that needed to disappear NOW. There were other better answers, and voting would be enough in my opinion.

Besides, the answer was flagged about 1-2 hours after being posted, and at that time there was (there still is, I think) time to edit and improve it.

It's really not a matter of workload, I'd say it's pretty low on average. It's more about not being too heavy-handed, especially with newer users.

Another decline reason states:

flags should only be used to make moderators aware of content that requires their intervention

which I often use as guideline, to mean that if a post is not harmful, the community can better deal with it than a mod.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ok, so as I understand, if there is something to improve in my way of handling those posts, it would be to leave a comment as I did, and eventually come back for flagging a few days later if the post hasn't been improved, right? Or not flag at all? \$\endgroup\$
    – dim
    Commented Oct 3, 2018 at 12:50
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm not even sure why the "low-quality post" flag exists at all. That's what the voting system is supposed to handle, and in general, moderators try NOT to subvert the voting system. The system even has an automatic low-quality flag for short posts. I suppose this is good for quickly finding answers that really should be comments, but it has too many false positives. I end up declining or ignoring most of them. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dave Tweed
    Commented Oct 3, 2018 at 12:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ Fine call. Use a light touch \$\endgroup\$
    – Scott Seidman
    Commented Oct 3, 2018 at 14:48
3
\$\begingroup\$

Peronally, I don't think flagging was appropriate here.

I agree that was a crappy answer. The right mechanism for that is to downvote.

If you think the OP has a simple misconception, something is demonstrably wrong, or you disagree with something specific, you really should leave a comment explaining that. In the case of largely gibberish, as this answer, I can see the point to simply downvoting and moving on.

Let the voting system handle this.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

My 2 cents:

That answer deserves a downvote; it's not useful. However, with small modifications from the poster, it can easily be salvaged. I don't think the mod did anything wrong (but I am puzzled by the upvote - this answer is useful? really?).

However: I also don't think you should stop flagging just to reduce the workload of the moderators:

Currently we don't really need more mods, as flags' handling is not a big issue.

You flagged in good faith because you thought the site would be better off without that answer. I would personally not mind if it's nuked but it's judgment call, and opinions will necessarily differ. I think the site will be worse off and the quality will suffer if users who care about it will abstain from flagging.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree it could have been salvaged by the poster, but he didn't react. And I may be mistaken but I don't think anyone else can reliably guess what is really being said here. So this is where I am puzzled: why keep answers we're not sure what they mean? This isn't really opinion-based, but rather objective, and this is the matter on which I need some clarification. \$\endgroup\$
    – dim
    Commented Oct 3, 2018 at 11:49
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @dim True, no one can or should guess - I think it's bad when supposedly helpful users edit posts that are missing details because you never know what they meant. But "he didn't react" is a bit harsh seeing how he has not even had time to log in and read your objection yet! Had it been a week, sure, but I think you can give him at least a full day... \$\endgroup\$
    – pipe
    Commented Oct 3, 2018 at 12:12
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ My guess is that the upvote was from the question author. He may have been trying to show appreciation for answering at all, and not have enough background to realize that answer is gibberish. Negative vote score should tell people not to try to use that answer, but that takes a while to accumulate. I helped with that just now, and left a comment. \$\endgroup\$
    – Olin Lathrop
    Commented Oct 3, 2018 at 17:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .