11

As the experiment with lowering reputation for commenting continues, we’re updating the comment flag modal to include a spam flag. This will come with the automated deletion threshold as it does for questions and answers, though the threshold for comments is controlled by a separate site setting. That threshold is currently set so that 2 spam flags will result in the deletion of the comment. A single spam flag from a moderator achieves the same result. These measures will help remove any spam comments quickly, without need for moderator action. The separate spam flag also provides a path for data about the spamming user to be fed into broader anti-spam countermeasures and systems.

Below is the revised modal for spam flags, currently enabled on Stack Overflow as part of the experiment. All variations of the experiment have this updated modal available.

Updated comment flag modal that lists four flag reasons: the new "spam" reason, the new composite reason "unfriendly or contains harassment/bigotry/abuse", "not needed", and "in need of moderator intervention"

In order to stick with four flag options and keep things simple, “It contains harassment, bigotry, or abuse” and “It’s unfriendly or unkind” have been combined into a single reason. This reason retains its own auto-deletion logic.

Since lowering the reputation requirement, spam has not been a significant issue. We have noted a small number of 1-rep users posting the same message/link across multiple comments. Almost all of them also posted at least one answer with the same content. The teams working on spam countermeasures have been taking a look at those users and their patterns.

There also has not been a notable increase in comment flagging or deletion as the expansion has continued. We’ll continue monitoring all of those signals as more users become aware of the lower reputation requirement.

18
  • 1
    Just to be clear, it looks like UU and HBA flags are getting merged. Is Spam a purely new type, or merely a renamed HBA flag? Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 16:14
  • 3
    @Machavity It is new, and specific to comments (ie not the same as the post spam flag) Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 16:22
  • 20
    Have you done any research into the merging of the two flags? Part of why we created two separate ones was out of concern that people wouldn't use one that seemed so extreme (harassment, bigotry, abuse) for cases where things were merely unfriendly. I understand you have both as options but I'd hope you're going to be watching the trends and see if there's a drastic drop in flags using that reason compared to the combined flags using the individual ones. Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 16:46
  • 2
    @Catija Since the beginning of 2024, there were about 10x more "unfriendly" comment flags than "harassment" flags, so that's one reason "unfriendly" is first in the description. Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 17:08
  • 27
    @Berthold I would sincerely hope so... but that doesn't actually answer my question or address the psychological choice to have them be separate flags. Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 17:14
  • 5
    Yeah, I don't like the "Not needed" text, it is vague and requires a ? Pop-up explaining what falls under "Not needed", the previous "No longer needed" (NLN) was much clearer and didn't need any explanation... Commented Aug 21, 2025 at 0:05
  • Do Users whose Comment gets flagged x2 as Spam get a -100-Rep penalty...? If YES, is it cumulative for several Comments by that User on one Post or in the same Thread...? (If YES, this is going to be misused, very easy for 2 "friends" or 2 "linked accounts" to easily inflict a -400-Rep Reputation decrease to some User they don't like...) Commented Aug 21, 2025 at 0:27
  • 5
    @chivracq comment flags shouldn’t have any effect on reputation. They never have, since comments have nothing to do with reputation. Commented Aug 21, 2025 at 0:53
  • @Catija Hum, OK, a User posting a Question or an Answer that got x3 flagged as Spam (and usually very quickly relied by the 'Charcoal'-ChatRoom) would get the User a -100-Rep penalty, although most Users/Spammers usually are just new Users with just 1-Rep... Commented Aug 21, 2025 at 1:33
  • 2
    @chivracq So do users who had posts deleted as rude/abusive... but there's no similar negative system effect when users have comments deleted as rude/abusive. The system just does not apply the same penalties for comments as it does for posts. Commented Aug 21, 2025 at 11:39
  • @Catija Ah, alright then, but the User's Guide for 'spam' + 'rude or abusive' Fllags (on 'MSE') is maybe not completely clear as it uses the word "something" (which I then understand as "Posts" (= Questions + Answers) + "Comments" for raising such Red Flags, but the section about the effects (and the -100 penalty) then uses the word "Post" (= Questions + Answers), and "Comments" are not mentioned anymore... Commented Aug 21, 2025 at 12:12
  • Could I suggest adding details in the title so that the changes are obvious at a glance? Comments update: flag modal changes: added "spam" and merged "unkind"+"abusive" Commented Aug 21, 2025 at 17:32
  • 2
    @ray Maybe a silly question but if you think the comment should be edited into the question... why not edit instead of flagging? Seems like an odd choice for the company to build in a flag that asks mods to do something users can do themselves. Commented Aug 23, 2025 at 2:39
  • 1
    @Catija There are 2 reasons that come into my mind. The first thing is the information in comment could be important but ambiguous. Due to the word limitation in comments, they are often segmented and separated from explanation and context. It is hard, if not impossible, to edit and incorporate that into the question. The second thing is that even if the information is editted into the question. The comment itself still needs to be cleaned up. I am proposing that flag to indicate some information in comments should not be simply discarded. Commented Aug 23, 2025 at 2:56
  • 1
    @ray It's not going to be any less ambiguous to a mod, though... so the better option would be to respond and ask the commenter to edit the post with the information they're adding in more detail if it's relevant. Or, if it is clear enough to add, edit and then flag for deletion. Save the mod some work. They get thousands of flags and it's better for them if they can just click delete rather than having to get the context (possibly in a tech they don't know), then edit the post and delete the comment. That's not what mods are for. That's why users can edit any post. Commented Aug 23, 2025 at 14:36

6 Answers 6

Reset to default
44

One of the first big events I had to manage when I got hired as a CM was an overhaul of comment flags. That was back in 2018. At the time, CMs reviewed the design changes but overlooked the text changes to the flags, which led to having to quickly communicate and redo the text when community members found that the flag reasons no longer aligned with the use of the flags.

The process of reworking the text to both meet the company's priorities for supporting the CoC changes and meeting community behaviors/norms took some education and adjustment. I wouldn't say that the final solution was perfect but the important thing was that we worked to ensure the changes were communicated and users had documentation of how to use the flags.

Many of the initial changes that had to be revamped were similar to the changes you've now made here on SO - particularly the change for the no longer needed reason. While I understand y'all can't always predict concerns, this has been discussed to death over the years and nearly every time these flag dialogs get touched, they get messed up.

If you want to add a spam reason, fine... but why are you changing everything else with no discussion? Why merge the two rude flags? Why rename the NLN flag and change the descriptive text so that most of the current usage of the flag is now invalid? What's your plan to review usage of the flags to ensure they're still being used?

The intention of having two rude flags was to give flaggers who might be shy about calling a statement "harassment, bigotry, or abuse" a more gentle option. Maybe they'll use a combined flag... but do you know that they will? Maybe, instead, having two similar flags confuses users who don't know which to choose... so maybe having a single option will leave users feeling like flagging is easier... but how will you know?

There are benefits to having two flags in addition to the psychology aspects - it gives mods a chance to see the degree to which a user has been rude on the platform. Merging the two forces mods to review each comment to determine the degree of rudeness (yes, that relies on flaggers using flags correctly but... everything does). It also gives mods some priorities... the bright red harassment flags draw immediate attention and action while there's less urgency with unfriendly flags.

Having two flags also allows for different system responses to each flag type - though it didn't last I checked. The autoflag for mods related to abusive comments could be raised for harassment after only two deleted recent comments but could be raised after four for unfriendly ones. Again, y'all never built this but it would be helpful to mods when looking for behavior trends.

Sure, the change y'all have made can be reverted and maybe you build in some changes in the future but I don't understand the decision to make this change as part of this low rep comment test rather than as part of a separate discussion and test.

1
  • 2
    The merge does leave a bad taste. One would think that unfriendliness and harassment/bigotry/abuse should not be lumped together like that. The former is a person having a bad day which is not great but we've all been there so delete and move on. The latter is the deed of someone who on repeat offense needs to go do that somewhere else. If there was no separation in how those flags were handled before, that's not a problem to hide under the rug like this. Fix it. Or expect it to be handled with mod flags. Commented Aug 22, 2025 at 15:22
26

Is it intentional that the "No longer Needed" is now "Not Needed"? The description is now only for that the comment isn't relevant to the post, where as the old flag included that the comment is outdated or conversational.

This would mean, based on the description, a comment that, for example, addresses a typographical error in a post should not be removed even after the typo is fixed, as it's relevant to the post.

Is SO Inc's intention that an outdated comments, and conversational comments, should no longer be flagged?

6
  • 2
    The intention is to make this a slightly broader (and perhaps less fraught) flag reason. There could be multiple reasons to believe something is not needed. This removes any "how long should this stay before I flag it?" decision. The fourth option is always available if the flagger wants to provide more context. Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 16:59
  • 13
    Forgive me, @Berthold , but I'm confused how "This comment is not relevant to this post" is broader than "This comment is outdated, conversational, or not relevant to this post.". The latter provides more options, so I don't see how it's more concise Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 17:02
  • 2
    @ThomA I was speaking more about "not needed" being broader than "no longer needed". There's certainly room to add more to the description line if more guidance there is helpful. Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 17:11
  • 17
    Yes, adding information (back) to the description would be beneficial in my view, @Berthold . As I stated, it now reads to me that outdated comments should not be flagged, as they are relevant to the post. Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 17:13
  • 12
    My usual reason for flagging as no longer needed is that someone commented about a comment of mine that has since been deleted. I don't feel that "not needed" or "not relevant to the post" covers that. Plus, "not needed" and "not relevant to the post" are totally different things! Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 18:37
  • 1
    Something that is 'no longer needed' is also always 'not needed', so this should be fine, I guess. Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 21:19
23

Conceptually, I don't mind "not needed" over "no longer needed", but "this comment is not relevant to this post" doesn't feel clear enough in practice- Ex. cases where the comment was relevant, but an edit makes it not relevant. Technically, it's no longer relevant, but as a new user, I'd question whether that's a valid case to use the flag reason. It also just feels overly restrictive (not clear if it covers conversational comments that are just fluff).

It looks like you've reverted the text for NLN back to what it was now(?). Again, conceptually, I'm fine if the name is changed to "not needed" (though the back of my mind wonders if that'll have unforseen consequences of flag misuse). There's probably room for improving the description text over what has existed before this, but I don't know what exactly off the top of my head. I'd refer generally to https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges/comment, but there's some stuff there that I wouldn't want people to flag as NLN, like answers to questions via comments that haven't yet been moved to actual answer posts.

4
  • 4
    "This comment is not relevant or no longer needed." Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 18:19
  • 2
    @KevinB possible double negative interpretation. “This comment is no longer needed or not relevant.” Seems less prone to that risk. Or “This comment is not relevant or is no longer needed.” Using the verb twice avoids the risk of distributing the not across multiple list items. Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 18:26
  • 2
    Re: apparent reversion, the NLN change didn't happen on the question comment flag modal, it seems. We'll take a look. Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 18:43
  • 1
    @Berthold I still see "no longer needed" for both questions and answer comments. I'm not opted-in to experiments, but I see the changes for the spam and UU/HBA flag text. Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 18:51
17

The edits to the wording of "Not needed" are a downgrade, and I suggest that you revert that part of the change. Here is the change:

  • Old (I think): It's no longer needed.
    This comment is outdated, conversational, or not relevant to this post.

  • New: Not needed.
    This comment is not relevant to this post.

While this change makes the text more concise, I think it makes it less clear. Conversational/chatting comments should be deleted, even if one can make an argument that they are relevant. Outdated comments should be deleted, even if they were once relevant. Saying that a comment is "not relevant" sounds like a very high bar, but saying that it is "outdated or conversational" sounds like a lower bar.

So this feels like a substantive change, not merely a trivial rewording, and not for the better. Moreover, it is a substantive change that was made without community notice or discussion, and the change is not necessary to support the introduction of a spam flag.

For those reasons, I ask that you revert the wording for "Not needed" back to the previous wording.

9

What are the IDs of the new flags?

1
  • 7
    The composite UU/HBA flag ID is: 20 The new spam flag ID is: 45 Commented Aug 20, 2025 at 17:13
2

The verbiage "Not needed" has not been updated everywhere. I just flagged a comment as "Not needed" but in my flag history (https://stackoverflow.com/users/flag-summary/4518341) I see "No longer needed"

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.