8 ms·
To be clear, I find the automatic edits to usually be useful. I left my comment to explain why I flagged the article (assuming 'dang looks at flagged posts and
by boulos 5y ago
To be clear, I find the automatic edits to usually be useful. I left my comment to explain why I flagged the article (assuming 'dang looks at flagged posts and then has to wonder "Why is this flagged?").
- brundolf 5y agoI don't think that's a proper use of flagging: > What does [flagged] mean? > It means that users flagged a post as breaking the guidelines or otherwise not belonging on Hacker News.
- kroltan 5y agoYou could contrive that this breaks the "don't editorialize titles" guidelines, in the lack of a better option.
- 0des 5y agoIt means that N people worth X points more than you flagged it in a short span of time, so the site hides it unless someone vouches for you.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoUnless you have "show dead" turned on, in which case you see it anyway. (You still can't comment on it, though.) And, if it's dead and you see it and you don't think it should be dead, you can "vouch" for it. If enough people do that, it can lift the "flagged" status.
- boulos 5y agoI actually unflag after corrections. I think one-off flagging doesn't end up triggering any badness for the poster (and the rules for comments vs posts are different). Only once enough people flag something does anything happen.
- brundolf 5y agoYour reputation as a flagger goes down when you make a lot of false-flags (I don't know exactly how this is measured). I.e. your flags start counting for less
- detaro 5y agoif you want a mod to fix something, emailing them is more reliable. I don't think flagging is fair over non-intentional title manipulation.