Question

What about "select a reason for flag" feature?

Comments

https://github.com/ProThoughts/q2apro-flag-reasons

Answer 1

My users wouldn't need that.

But this is an idea for a plugin.

Answer 2

+1

I think this is a good idea as at least the person who asked the question can know the reason what's wrong with the question and he/she and other can aware of that while asking question in future.

Comments

Compared to a "report this post" button (where person reporting is expected to explain/describe, and staff is expected to read/decide/act), a "flag" button invites problems:

-- makes "reporting" TOO easy, invites overuse/abuse

-- yes, leaves the person whose post was flagged wondering "What's the problem? Who has a problem with what I posted, and why?" and, perhaps, the  affected person will feel "slapped" and will be less motivated to continue participating. If the person does continue participating, predictably (understandably) they will be more inclined to similarly slap others' posts.

-- Spammers don't care about being slapped, so aren't deterred until staff intervenes anyhow... unless the q2a app has been configured to hide (without hands-on staff intervention) posts which have received xx flags. If staff presence isn't sufficient to notice "bad" posts without flagging/reporting, staff probably also won't notice if/when certain users are engaged in bullying (racking up flags against targeted posts, due to the bullys' shared agenda).

-- specifically because the mechanism is so easy to use, the config probably limits each account to "can only flag xx times per day". This undermines the effectiveness of those users who proactively "strive to keep the place clean".

As is, the mouseover description "flag as spam or inappropriate" is arguably insufficient. What, exactly, does "inappropriate" mean within a given q2a-powered community? A sufficient description probably won't fit, nor should it be relegated to, a mouseover onhover label. I am suggesting that a modal popup should display each time user clicks a flag link, displaying detailed text (customized by the site's q2a admin) outlining the do's and don'ts for using the flag feature.

Rhetorically: If the q2a flag feature were "split out" into separate reporting "reasons", can we even guess how many splits the admin of a given q2a installation would want, or need?

Answer 3

When a topic for discussion cannot be definitively "answered", it's silly (er, awkward) to pigeohole the users into titling the topic as a "question", eh?

Here, eftalgezer thoughtfully applied a tag, "feature-suggestion". My approach might have been to stuff "suggest:" into the title, not phrase the title as a question... and hope for upvotes. Oh, well...

For certain sites, I have repeatedly thought it would be a good idea to relabel and repurpose the "flag" feature. The label would read "RTFM" instead... and users would be advised to NOT reply to any post bearing "xx flags" (vs posting to mention "it's right there in the wiki; here's a link" or "already discussed numerious times, use the site search" or "don't feed the trolls" or whatever). Not toward encouraging rudeness, nor meanness, nor noob-unfriendliness... but, seriously, on many sites it begs to be said. Through the years I've painfully witnessed many communities devolving, due to the "Feed a man a fish" vs "Teach a man to fish" mindset of seekers.

On a related note (I'm saying it's related, others may not agree):
Many communities beg a better mechanism for handling/enforcing their user agreement stipulation "on this site, discussions (and bug reports, etc) must be posted in English [or whichever] language". If seeker does not speak users' language, users cannot reasonably be expected to provide help. I've become "burned out" as a result of repeatedly trying to work beyond language barriers and trying to help. Sadly, experience has taught me to refrain from discussion when a language barrier exists. Providing a lengthy, detailed "howto" misses the mark, as does a ping-pong, bits-n-pieces "what means termX?" dialog session. Nearly inevitably, the course of such dialogs has been "sorry i not understand. You do for me please? make work?" (ala "Feed a man a fish")