1

Should I flag a comment when the commenter doesn't really understand the background of a field. e.g. Servers (Sys admin questions), networks (Net admin questions), web dev etc.. or the initial question and provides bad feedback on other answers?

I come across alot of these type of comments from serverfault users, who don't really know much about the related field of the question and comment anyway.

Sample.

Answer 3 comment. would you flag?

Question.

Why should I use this service or scheme in my office environment when using ACLs on my Cisco border router 6509. Is name acls better than using extented ACLs or should I move to a ISA environment?

Answer1
look at dedicating a cisco ASA firewall... etc
comments..this is a better option but is costly and may not suit your environments needs

Answer2
ISAs are good if you have enough dedicated agents and server power.. to use in an environment when you are blocking this.....
..comments

Answer3
ACLs are complex... name and extended are virtually the same in almost every way. You should read these articles.... web links... blah blah... In order to understand why you would use one over the other and why they are different.
..comment... No one users ACLs anymore.. dont listen to this answer

Hope this example helps

  • 4
    Can you provide a specific example? – Mark Henderson Feb 11 '12 at 5:58
  • 1
    why don't you just link to the relevant question? – Sven Feb 12 '12 at 6:21
  • "who don't really know much but the related field of the question and comment anyway" (I'll assume that's a typo and you meant "about", not "but"). This implies that you consider yourself so expert that you are able to judge others on a single comment. That's extremely presumptuous and egotistical in my view, especially from someone so new to the site. – John Gardeniers Feb 13 '12 at 1:37
  • @JohnGardeniers Yes, I don't have the greatest grammar... it's not that one is an 'expert' but merely when a junior answers incorrectly passing on either bad practises, bad advice or something they have read and based on purely theoretical knowledge. Which without a doubt most people have encountered in their work history. – onxx Feb 13 '12 at 3:35
2

Official StackExchange comment-preservation policy is, effectively,

Flag all you want, they'll make more

Or a bit more clearly,

Comments are ephemeral. They're meant to be deleted without consequence.

We're a bit more forgiving about that around here. If the comments materially add to the material, overall understanding and resolution, I keep 'em regardless of comment-flags. Even wrong comments can add to understanding though.

I don't know what my action percentage for comment flags, but it has changed since I started being a mod. At first I dismissed most of them. Now I give each consideration and look at the questions they're attached to in order to see if they need further cleanup.

  • Thanks, its about as clear as mud. I will use my discretion when encountering the less experienced and assess accordingly. – onxx Feb 11 '12 at 22:50
  • @onxx Clear as mud just about sums things up nicely. – sysadmin1138 Feb 11 '12 at 23:12
2

If the comment should not be there, for almost any reason, flag it. For instance if the comment was meant for another Question or Answer, flag it. If they're talking about something completely off topic, flag it. If they're being notably rude or offensive, flag it.

If they're talking to you and you simply don't agree with what they're saying, that's when you shouldn't flag it... But otherwise, flag it. =]

  • 1
    Thanks @chris I usually try to keep this as a rule of flag thumb. As I'm fairly new to this site and its etiquette I wanted to clarify before flag certain comments as not everything is black and white. – onxx Feb 11 '12 at 21:53

You must log in to answer this question.

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