Well, that wasn't a great start of the day. Anyone has a better answer? Why would an admin want to be anonymous anyway?

Monking

I just got a flag "not an answer" declined ("a moderator reviewed your flag, but found no evidence to support it ") but the Low Quality review queue apparently accepted my flag, see unix.stackexchange.com/review/first-posts/191852 vs. unix.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/191860 What happened?

@phk I didn't deal with your flag but I might have done the same. That looks like an honest attempt to answer the question. What am I missing?

I mean, granted, I have no idea what the answerer is actually trying to say. But it does sort of look vaguely like an answer. A downvote might have been more appropriate.

But yeah, I can also understand why you'd flag. Shrug this sort of thing is a judgment call and can go both ways.

That answer seems fine, I'm not sure what everyone's issue with it was. It was saying that the config file probably binds to 127.0.0.1 instead of 0.0.0.0 and that's why connections via the public IP don't work, but without more info like the name of the actual service they can't go into specifics

I got the impression people saw that the first sentence was a question and flagged it just based on that, but you could remove the first sentence and it'd still be fine