3
$\begingroup$

The original post of this question included an, in my opinion, suspicious-looking link, which allegedly contained the source of the question. I handled this by writing a comment warning others that it might be a bad idea to click it. I also flagged it for moderator attention, and this is where I'm in doubt. Was I a bit to trigger-happy? Is the moderator handling process slow enough that I should wait for someone else to edit, or as in this case, check the link's validity (yes, it was legit).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Flagging the mods is a good choice. $\endgroup$ – robjohn Dec 17 '13 at 20:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To add a bit to @robjohn's comment: It does take time for the mods to get look into any flag. (The average flag-handling time is about 3 hours, though for simpler flags this is usually significantly shortened. But "significantly shortened" does not mean "instantaneous".) Also, if more users raise a flag on the same post it increases the priority of these flags. So if, in this case, several users felt the link was suspicious and flagged the question, the mods likely would have got around to it somewhat quicker. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Dec 17 '13 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, thanks! And the flag was indeed deemed helpful despite the fact that the issue had since long been handled by other means. $\endgroup$ – Daniel R Dec 17 '13 at 21:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DanielR: "Helpful" doesn't necessarily mean that the mods did anything other than click the "helpful" button on the dialogue. It might just be positive reinforcement for good flagging behaviour. There's one user in particular that raises a very large number of flags that often don't require any further moderator action, but yet I invariably deem all its flags "helpful". $\endgroup$ – user642796 Dec 17 '13 at 22:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .