1

So I flagged this answer as 'very low quality', because to my mind it "has severe content problems" and "is unlikely to be salvageable through editing".

However, my flag was declined (not disputed - declined). Therefore it seems this content:

The Vc25 was built only for the president. Lest be honest is boeing going to cram missiles on to the presidents plane?? If so it could be looked at as a target. The vc25 as you said did have some defense tactics, BUT those tactics are only designed to hold of for so long, given the fact that after sometime escort will come to help AF1 which could quickly end that situation. Also anti air missles on a plane could turn ultimately deadly given a certain situation, possibly leading to the death of the president. Plus the af1 is pretty sick looking and maxed when it comes to defense measurements. So what im saying to wrap it up is that overall the vc25 is as safe as can be, because boeing and the air force will not play with our presidents life.

(which to me looks like "unsalvageable ..... barely legible garbage") can in fact be salvaged through editing. I would love to see how!

  • Severe content problems means: sgoingpowe0g382r3tn tiuhgpi9uqwgt oweg hwgeg. The content of that answer is actual words that say actual stuff. It's not low quality. – Catija Jun 2 '16 at 14:14
  • @Catija What your described, "agdgshdhdjdj" is spam, not simply VLQ. – NVZ Jul 4 '16 at 22:53
  • @NVZ By SE definition, you are actually incorrect. Spam on SE is used only to refer to messages designed to promote a product, not junk content like that.... For confirmation, just read the spam flag explanation on any post. – Catija Jul 4 '16 at 22:56
3

First of all, I was not the moderator who declined your flag and only took a look at that answer after I read this meta question. I would still encourage said moderator to post his point of view, but I don't disagree with the decision either. But here are my views on the matter.

In general, the "very low quality" flag and its usage is confusing and inconsistent at best. It's something between a "not an answer" flag when it's still somewhat of a answer and a more vehement downvote. Most of the time it's unclear what to do with those flags at all.

I have to say, though, that due to this meta discussion I just took a closer look at the answer and tried to salvage it. And I have to say it seems to address the question to some degree and only required a few spelling and grammar corrections to drag that to the surface. You could say it's not a particularly good or correct answer and largely based on speculation less than reliable sources and also misses the question a little bit. But that is what downvotes are for (which I see from your profile you haven't actually done). It seems to be a clearly readable answer that tries to adress the question. Doesn't read like "unsalvagable...barely legible garbage" to me at all. Don't forget that a flag is not a super-downvote.

So if you want to see how the post can be salvaged through editing, take a look at it now.

4

I was the moderator who declined the flag. The reason why I did this is really outlined in my answer to this meta question:

What is a low quality answer?

Personally I don't believe that we should be deleting content just because its poor, that's what the voting is for. Deleting answers is abrupt and often not fully explained to the person who contributed the content. Votes and comments will allow the user to learn more.

I personally don't think the content is barely legible garbage, which would couldn't conceivably be edited to directly answer the question. I think its a very poor answer, certainly - but that's what voting and commenting are for.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .