So I say we should remove the VLQ link from the helper queue as there really is no use for it and substitute it with the close flag menu. We can then keep Triage as a real Triage, seperating the absolute garbage from the rest, and the Helper queue can either whip the remainder into shape or get rid of it.

So I say we should remove the VLQ link from the helper queue as there really is no use for it and substitute it with the close flag menu. We can then keep Triage as a real Triage, separating the absolute garbage from the rest, and the Helper queue can either whip the remainder into shape or get rid of it.

^{Freehand circle mine}

• Not the most knowledgeable on how things (are supposed to) work on this site
• Not the best judges of quality (yet)
• Might errr. on the safe side of things because of above two reasons

I think the Triage queue can do a good job at shifting out the real crap from the VLQ, say the worst 10%. (It would be nice to see what percentage of VLQ flags that go into triage actually result into "Unsalvageable") Now we could argue that this is the worst kind of garbage that comes with a VLQ flag attached to it, so why should we bother putting that into the close vote queue, when already 3 users decided this is beyond any help. Hence straight up delete a post when it ammased 3 "Unsalvageable" votes form Triage. I think the dilligence of putting it in the close vote queue is just abundant, as most likely triage users err on the safe side and rarely use the "Unsalvageable" option as I reasoned before. (Statistics to (dis-)prove me are welcome) This would deal with Shog's notion that garbage tends to linger around the site for too long.

Now as to wether or not we need tag experts or just alround experts to judge the now remaining "Should be improved" flags is the last step.

Then ofcourse there are questions that are flagged "Should be improved" but are in no way near an actual question, or something that barely resembles an answer. One with domain knowledge is by default better able to judge these edge-cases, and is certainly better able to find a duplicate to close against.

So how to deal with those questions that "Should be improved" but are just beyond repair? Casting a VLQ flag on them certainly isn't helpfull, as it will pop-up in the helper queue again after reviewing 10 items or so. Personally I have been doing some testing with a couple of review items in the helper queue. I opened the post in a seperate screen and casted the appropriate close flag. I then went back to the helper queue and casted the VLQ flag as well. This way the VLQ flag is also shown in my flag history. In most cases my close flag was deemed helpfull, whilst my VLQ flag was disputed, indicating that:

No, we should not. We should let the garbage be shifted out by anyone willing to help (a.k.a. the Triage review). They can get rid of the real crap. What then remains as not up to standard ("Needs Improving") can be handled by anyone through the helper queue in which they either edit questions into shape or flag to close them. Domain experts can then use their normal tools to get rid of questions that were edited from the helper queue but still make no sense by using close flags and down/close votes.

^{Freehand circle mine}

• Not the most knowledgeable on how things (are supposed to) work on this site
• Not the best judges of quality (yet)
• Might err. on the safe side of things because of above two reasons

I think the Triage queue can do a good job at shifting out the real crap from the VLQ, say the worst 10%. (It would be nice to see what percentage of VLQ flags that go into triage actually result into "Unsalvageable") Now we could argue that this is the worst kind of garbage that comes with a VLQ flag attached to it, so why should we bother putting that into the close vote queue, when already 3 users decided this is beyond any help. Hence straight up delete a post when it amassed three "Unsalvageable" votes form Triage. I think the diligence of putting it in the close vote queue is just abundant, as most likely triage users err on the safe side and rarely use the "Unsalvageable" option as I reasoned before. (Statistics to (dis-)prove me are welcome.) This would deal with Shog's notion that garbage tends to linger around the site for too long.

Now as to whether or not we need tag experts or just all-round experts to judge the now remaining "Should be improved" flags is the last step.

Then of course there are questions that are flagged "Should be improved", but are in no way near an actual question, or something that barely resembles an answer. One with domain knowledge is by default better able to judge these edge-cases and is certainly better able to find a duplicate to close against.

So how to deal with those questions that "Should be improved", but are just beyond repair? Casting a VLQ flag on them certainly isn't helpful, as it will pop-up in the helper queue again after reviewing 10 items or so. Personally I have been doing some testing with a couple of review items in the helper queue. I opened the post in a separate screen and cast the appropriate close flag. I then went back to the helper queue and cast the VLQ flag as well. This way the VLQ flag is also shown in my flag history. In most cases my close flag was deemed helpful, whilst my VLQ flag was disputed, indicating that:

No, we should not. We should let the garbage be shifted out by anyone willing to help (a.k.a. the Triage review). They can get rid of the real crap. What then remains as not up to standard ("Needs Improving") can be handled by anyone through the helper queue in which they either edit questions into shape or flag to close them. Domain experts can then use their normal tools to get rid of questions that were edited from the helper queue, but still make no sense by using close flags and down/close votes.

So to get back to the original question:

No, we should not. We should let the garbage be shifted out by anyone willing to help (a.k.a. the Triage review). They can get rid of the real crap. What then remains as not up to standard ("Needs Improving") can be handled by anyone through the helper queue in which they either edit questions into shape or flag to close them. Domain experts can then use their normal tools to get rid of questions that were edited from the helper queue but still make no sense by using close flags and down/close votes.