Platform(s), such as mobile, website, API, other: Website
URLs (aka web addresses) of any pages, if relevant: none relevant
Description of need: There are 2 problems caused by flags that are resolved without explanation. Problem one: as a curator I sometimes will look at past flags on a user to see if an issue I am dealing with is new or has a history, and flags that are resolved with no reason given make it more difficult for curators to assess what happened in past situations with the user. Unexplained resolutions may also confuse the flagger or flaggee.
Problem two: I have seen multiple cases where allegations of unfair treatment arise from unexplained flag resolutions, this perception of unfair treatment can contribute to conflict escalation and reduce trust in curator and staff decisions. When a flag is resolved without explanation and no moderator action is taken, the flaggee may think that the resolver is biased against them, and is trying not to admit that the flagged content was not inappropriate, while the flagger may think that the resolver is biased against them and is trying not to admit that the flagged content is problematic. I have also seen a claim from a user that the total number of flags on their moderation history was used against them. I do not know if this is true, but I think the less unclear flag resolutions there are the less likely people are to feel a need to simply count flags against a user rather than looking at resolution reasons
Feature request details: Currently curators are required to type something in as a reason when they hide a comment, and if no reason is typed the comment will not hide. I am proposing that this also be made the case for flag resolutions, that the resolving curator should have to type something into the flag resolution in order to resolve the flag, currently the resolve button can be clicked without typing a resolution reason
I support this idea, and, if it is implemented, I’d also like an easier way to see the text that resolvers enter in the resolution field. Anything longer than 25-30ish characters in the field is currently not visible on the flag itself, which can make assessing difficult. If more text submissions are required, this issue might become more prevalent.
I support this good idea, and would suggest extending it to the initial act of flagging too.
Sometimes things are flagged for no clearly stated reason, leaving one to infer the problem and resolve (or not) on the basis of the inference. Why inappropriate, for example: it’s not always self-evident.
That is correct, however this feature request is about the text curators type in the resolution box when resolving a flag, all flags have a resolution box for curators
A user can leave a comment on the flag after they make it to explain, which many users do (though many also do not). This is an approach used on all kinds of flags (including taxon curation, etc).
But I think the original purpose of the request is specifically around curators resolving flags. If people want some change to the flag creation process to allow more detail, then that could be an additional request.
agreed – I also have to do this for extra-long resolution reasons, but it seems a bit silly.
is there any official uptake on the main point of this feature request? I continue to see flag resolutions that have no text and are not elaborated in a comment. they aren’t very common, but sometimes they are on extended discussions that require more than a blank stamp of resolution by one single (sometimes uninvolved) curator/
Seems reasonable to me. The only times I ever resolve something without a note is when I’m closing erroneous spam flags, and it won’t be too much effort to type something for those too.
Incorrect spam flags are somewhat uncommon in my experience, so I don’t think it’s too much of a burden to type something for those. I’d rather have a simpler rule (resolving text always needed) than a slightly more complex one (spam flags don’t need resolving text, but other flags do) in this case, since the benefit is low.
I also think it is good to see the resolutions for some spam flags because sometimes the situation there is a little more complex than “not spam” (which I use as resolving text when when the flag is totally erroneous). A lot of time, the spam flags are for something that does have a problem (just not spam by iNat’s definition) so the resolution is informative as to how the issue was addressed.
I have to imagine this is a pretty simple thing to change from the staff/dev side in terms of how flags are handled; is there any reason to not require text be entered in the resolution field? It won’t fix everything – I’ve seen uninformative text entered as a so-called resolution reason, such as “Done” or “Finished”, or just “Discussion closed” – but anything that will encourage people to think twice when resolving a flag, and to explain themselves, would be good.