Why on earth was this flag on this answer of a moderator rejected?

Question

I recently stumbled on this question and among the answers I found this one from an high rep user AND a moderator.

Although there is nothing wrong in the content of the "answer", it is clearly not an answer according to our standards, but just a comment.

It simply states:

It takes a lot of technology to make that possible. A grid-tied inverter is significantly more complex than an off-grid inverter.

Hep! That first sentence could be used as a reply to more than half the questions posted on EE.SE! And the second sentence barely dismiss the question as "too difficult to explain", without even attempting at answering the actual question, which is about how a grid-tied inverter is able to do so.

The fact that the question was answerable in a highly professional way is demonstrated by the very good answers that have been posted in that thread, so I hope there is no one arguing the "answer" I flagged was the only meaningful way to answer the OP.

Therefore I flagged the post accordingly as "not an answer" and then, to my utmost surprise I got this notice on my flag summary page (yellow emphasis mine):

I really think the mod reviewing the flag has done a mistake. How on earth could that "answer" be considered otherwise than an insightful comment?

Otherwise I could be well go hunting for random questions and posting a canned answer on the following lines:

It takes a lot of technology to make that possible. A [thingy named X cited in the question] is significantly more complex than an [thingy named Y somewhat related to X].

and see how many rep points I can reap, just for fun!

EDIT

Since an answer and relative comments made me think that maybe I wasn't completely clear, I'll try to reformulate my objections:

1. The original question was comprehensible, on-topic and answerable in our format.

2. Any answer posted on any SE site must

   a. attempt to answer the question

   b. stand on its own feet (no link-only answers, cryptic statement with no explanations, etc.)

   c. provide information to the community, regardless of whether the user asking the question understands it or not

3. The above conditions in point 2 are to be met by an answer, regardless of the quality of the question. A bad question doesn't make a bad answer good!

Even if the question was poor or had problems, this doesn't authorize a user to post low-quality answers. The problem I see with the answer I pointed out is exacerbated by the fact that it was posted by high-rep user which is also a moderator, who should know the rules and help enforce them.

Note: I'm not particularly upset because that answer was posted. People (mods included) can do mistakes.

On the other hand, I'm almost pissed-off by the flag rejection. Whoever handled that flag completely ignored the SE guidelines on what constitutes an answer. And this is still worse given that our site is notorious for having a harsher moderation policy.

Moreover, that answer will give other users a really bad example. They could point to that and justify any silly answer they could give with "See. A mod did it, so it's good practice!".

EDIT

It has been brought to my attention by a comment by user Ilmari Karonen (posted on the meta-answer of user Pipe) that the title of the question was changed after the answer we are discussing about was posted.

I did notice the question was edited, but I didn't notice the editing involved its title. That's a reminder to myself to check the editing log more thoroughly! My bad!

With the question's original title that answer was more justifiable, even if not great, since the question was really more blurry.

I still stand by my opinion regarding the objections raised by other meta-answers: if originally the title were really what appears now, that answer would amount as "not attempting at an answer", IMO.

Anyway, the point is now moot since the poster deleted his answer (kudos to Dave Tweed for recognizing it turned out not be an acceptable post, even if it marginally was when it was posted).

If Ilmari Karonen reposted his comment as an answer, I'd accept that.

PROBLEM SOLVED

Answer 1

The question, as originally asked, was clearly based on a fundamental misconception. (The original question title was "Why is adding AC power is easier than adding DC power?") The answer you refer to corrects that misconception, and is thus a valid answer to the question as originally asked. In fact, it's arguably the only answer the original question needed — the other answers just went off on various tangents.

However, after that and several other answers were posted, the question title was edited (by a person other than the OP) into something quite different (and more in line with the assumed question the currently top-voted answers are answering). As a side effect, any earlier answers that didn't go off on tangents about the internals of grid-tie inverters were seemingly invalidated by the edit, at least if you're mainly focusing on the title. (The question body does still include some evidence the OP's original misunderstanding, if you read all of it.)

The legitimacy of editing questions in ways that invalidate existing answers can be and has been debated in various places. My personal opinion is that it's situational, and that one needs to always consider whether the advantages (get a better question, hopefully invite better and more focused answers, possibly avoid the question getting closed) outweigh the disadvantages (put words in the OP's mouth and possibly piss them off, screw over folks who spent time answering the original question in good faith, maybe end up with answers that the OP doesn't want, need or understand). In any case, it's already been done here, and at least so far nobody's reverted it.

In the mean time, it looks like the question has since then been closed as unclear, the OP has accepted an answer that sort of answers both their original question and the edited version, the author of the top-voted competing answer is about to get a gold badge, and the answer you flagged has now been deleted by its author. In short, it's all a big mess. Whether it's a bigger mess than if the question had not been edited is anyone's guess. Anyway, maybe someone will edit the question further and get it reopened, or maybe this is how it will stay. Who knows?

Answer 2

Bad answers are still answers. Not an answer flags are used for things that don't even attempt to answer the question (and thats obviously subjective), as in asking another question, an attempt to get op to provide more info, thanks, "does anyone else have an answer to this" etc. How do I properly use the "Not an Answer" flag?

That answer wouldn't even qualify for the low quality flag.

The mechanism for that type of answer is voting. Downvote and move on.

Answer 3

You claim to quote the whole answer when you write "It simply states", but you left out the part that actually answered the question! Why did you do that? Would your message read differently if you kept it?

The crucial part of the question is:

…is it really that easy?

And the crucial part of the answer (which you did not quote) is:

No, it isn't really "that easy".

This is an answer to the question. Perhaps not the best answer, but that's what voting is supposed to sort out.