13

I recently custom-flagged a post which demonstrates a pattern of bad behavior by a specific user. I flagged one of those posts and simply stated that the user posted others. I didn't attach a link to the other posts in the flag because I didn't have it at the moment.

I value the time and effort of our mods, and when I raise a custom flag I always try to add as many details as possible. In this case I guessed it's fine as the mod can just check that user's posts. Still, some time after raising the flag I stumbled again on one of those other posts and really wanted to add it to the flag, but couldn't.

So my question/request is: Please allow the option for editing a custom flag, if it hasn't been reviewed by a mod yet (obviously...).

I can see no harm in this and think it's a win-win: I will have the option to add more details and once a mod acts on the flag it would be easier for them, and I reduce the chances of my flag being declined for lack of details.

6
  • 8
    Why not just retract and reflag Commented Feb 16, 2021 at 11:28
  • 2
    Doesn't retracting blocks you from raising again? Commented Feb 16, 2021 at 11:31
  • 9
    You can't reflag for the same reason except custom mod flags, which you can do as much as you like Commented Feb 16, 2021 at 11:31
  • 1
    I see very little value in the FR since it's something that can easily be solved with the current tools. It's an edge case in any case Commented Feb 16, 2021 at 11:44
  • 2
    Cross-site duplicate: Allow editing or deletion of moderator flag comment Commented Feb 16, 2021 at 11:56
  • 3
    The only use case I see is for users with less than 10k reputation. You need to see the flagged post in order to retract your flag (also see Allow retracting flags on deleted posts even if you can't view deleted posts). Then again, if the post has already been deleted, it's likely the whole problem has already been dealt with. And if not, you could flag another post instead (for instance, someone promotes their library and their answers are deleted in the queue but they keep on posting). Commented Feb 16, 2021 at 12:18

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
13

We should not allow custom mod flags to be edited. The ability to retract and re-flag is sufficient. We should, however, allow the person who raised the flag easy access to the flag's source Markdown, so they can copy it, if they want to, which could be used to raise a new flag.

Allowing custom mod flags to be edited introduces just too many race conditions between what the author of the flag thinks it says and what the moderator who is, potentially, working on processing the flag sees which would take a lot of work to deal with. None of the flag handling text or pages are currently "live" (i.e., updates require reloading the page). Overall, allowing custom flags to be edited would introduce considerable additional confusion for little benefit over people just being able to get the Markdown they wrote and re-submitting a new flag.

6
  • yeah, I can agree with this. I mean, these wants don't have to conflict? I just want an easy UX to "edit". requests like the following are essentially just as good in my eyes: When flagging, could we see any previous flags (including already-handled ones) we've raised on the same post?, Flag dialog box should show the contents of the custom flag raised earlier, (and while at it, Don't clear the custom flag message when dismissing the window). Commented Oct 5, 2024 at 0:43
  • "The ability to retract and re-flag is sufficient." => I'm not convinced as I don't see the difference (about "race conditions")...: Does a Flag disappear IRT in your Mod-Interface when the Flagger has retracted it, (to re-flag with their Edit a few minutes later), without requiring any Refresh...? // + Retract and re-flag (as "the way to go") is not documented anywhere, except on 'Meta'... Commented Oct 5, 2024 at 7:25
  • 3
    @chivracq No. Currently, what happens is that the moderator would be working on the flag as it existed at the time they opened the page, be that the question page, the post timeline, the post's list of flags, the user's list of flags, the list of flags on the post author's posts, or any of the multiple possible views of the moderator flag queue (list of pages is off the top of my head, so may be incomplete). The moderator would likely work on it to conclusion, without seeing that it was retracted during the time they were working on it. Commented Oct 5, 2024 at 7:52
  • 4
    After the moderator is done handling the flag, the moderator would attempt to dismiss the flag as "helpful" or "declined", they would encounter that the flag had been retracted and the retracted flag would not be marked as either "helpful" or "declined". If the user was able to edit the flag text, then it would be marked as either "helpful" or "declined", even though the state the moderator chose might no longer be accurate/correct for the new text of the flag, which is confusing to the user who flagged. Commented Oct 5, 2024 at 7:52
  • Hum..., OK indeed I understand... There should be some "Locking" on a Flag at some point, when either the Flagger has retracted it or is editing it, or a Mod is handling it... // Because "delete and re-do" is a complete "no-no" on 'SO', so many Posts on 'Meta' about Users who are Question-banned, and one of the main reasons is always that they have deleted Qt's they should have edited instead of deleting them... But for Flags the Advice is exactly the opposite... Not very intuitive I would say/think... Commented Oct 5, 2024 at 8:01
  • Thanks for the answer. I can understand the reasons not to allow edits. Also, your suggestion of the source markdown being available to re-raise a flag is also fine by me (meaning it would definitely solve the issue). Should I raise a new FR specifically for that functionality? Commented Oct 6, 2024 at 7:19
10

I would find this useful for one reason: my custom moderator flags often contain extensive Markdown to link posts, often that has to be hand-tweaked to be short enough to fit in the character limit (for example, these posts ([1](/a/12345), [2](/a/23456), [3](/a/34565)) are all spam for $site (See [here](//link.to/context) for more posts from this campaign)).

If I had some way of getting the Markdown, this wouldn't be an issue, but a simple copy/paste of the flag text doesn't get me what I need to recreate the flag.

This often comes up for flagging bad reviewers: I frequently stumble across additional bad reviews by the same people, but I don't always save the original flag text to add the additional reviews.

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.