bug status-completed

I noticed an inconsistency with the answer flag dialog:

To match the language of the 'I think this answer should be...' and the other options, the 'Not an answer' should be changed to 'deleted as not an answer'

Addressing an objection from the comments

Trying to factor out "should be" from the close reasons seems like a premature optimization. It makes the individual labels harder to understand, because someone might expect the labels to describe the current state of the post, rather than a proposed action. It also results in the awkward wording "closed as a duplicate question". That in itself is problematic because the "closed" option comes first, and might be selected by people who think the question is a duplicate.

The top line for each flag reason, IMO, should summarize a coherent problem with the post along with the corresponding course of action.

My own thoughts

I have a few ideas about the wording for most of these paragraphs. I'd also like to see the reasons for question closure split up more finely, even if they end up routing to the same place (at least for now). It's important to distinguish between:

• problems that can be fixed by anyone (generally not flaggable, since they'll be fixed by an edit);
• problems that can only be fixed by OP;
• problems that can't be fixed at all (without fundamentally changing the question)

because that helps people think carefully about what's actually wrong with the post, while also encouraging them to flag where appropriate (by giving reassurance that the flag is indeed appropriate in that situation).

I would present the close reasons like so, instead:

Flags help us uphold quality standards. I think this question:

• is spam, and should be deleted

  Spam promotes a product, service or website while failing to disclose the author's affiliation. Spam flags help us identify spammers and stop them from spamming again later.

• is rude or abusive, and should be deleted

  This post violates the Code of Conduct; it attacks other people or groups, includes objectionable content, vandalizes the site, attempts to defraud or "phish" others, etc. Moderators have a special privilege to address users privately, where appropriate.

• has already been properly asked and answered, so it should be closed as a duplicate

  Closing questions as duplicates helps everyone find the best-phrased version of the question and the highest-quality answers.

• is inappropriate for the site, so it should be closed

  Questions that are off topic, or which otherwise don't contribute to a high-quality Q&A library as described in the tour, should not be answered. The community can vote to close such questions, and eventually remove questions that can't be fixed.

• needs to be fixed by the author and should be closed until fixed

  Everyone can propose edits to fix minor problems. However, if the problem with the question is more significant, or if it can only be fixed by its author - for example, because of missing information that only the author has - the question should be temporarily closed to prevent misguided attempts to answer.

• needs a moderator's attention for another reason

  Moderators have special tools to deal with a wide variety of problems. Use this option if the situation doesn't fit in the categories above, or if you need to provide additional details to explain the problem with the post. Please give a specific and detailed explanation in the response field that pops up.

Here, bold text stands in for red highlighting; while the red is a good UI cue for "red flags", there should probably be an additional styling hint to accommodate colour-blind users. On the other hand, I intend the italic emphasis verbatim; the point is to remind the flag user of site policy and to indicate what will happen next. (Perhaps the text distinction between "should be closed" and "should be deleted" is enough of a hint for colour-blind users?)

Ideally, of course, any of the "should be closed" options would not go directly to the standard closure dialog - for example, there's no reason it should present the "duplicate" close reason again. Ideally, they'd go to separate interfaces that select appropriate corresponding close reasons (this would require individual sites to categorize their custom reasons). But that's out of scope for now.