@MatthewHaugen - Just a small note to say thanks for everything you're doing to help make Startups-SE a success; have a great day!

Just saw this question and wanted to flag it as off topic, but there seems to be no matching flag reason.

I'd like to flag it somehow, but no reason seems to be a good fit :-/

And I don't think "Blatantly off-topic" fits here, or does it?

@Nero Thanks, the question is now closed - and yes, it's simply "off-topic" and you could likely have just selected the reason as "other (needs ♦ moderator attention)" - then noted that in your opinion the question was off-topic and should be closed. Cheers!

Okay. I did not want to use the other flag because I thought that mod attention is a bit of overkill in that case (simple close does not necessarily need a moderator to handle it)

@blunders But it seems like it was closed as "Blatantly off-topic" (if the close reasons are the same as in the flag-to-close as off-topic dialog), so that would probably have been the right flag

@blunders Why thank you! Although it's important to remember that I'm a very small part of a large process that creates, delivers, and maintains content and the systems that deliver that content here on Stack Exchange, between the other members of our little moderation team, the employees of Stack Exchange, and of course the community members who give the rest of us purpose.

@blunders No, this should not have been an "other" flag. Off-topic flags and votes both go into the appropriate review queue, and us mods will see them there. Polluting our flag stream with redundant flags just leads to matters that do require our attention not getting handled as quickly, as well as, for lack of community involvement, these questions not getting closed as fast.

@Nero Blatantly off-topic would have been fine for this. It doesn't really do much, other than informing other users that something needs to be done, so it's fine for cases where you aren't sure what's better. The reason this close reason matched the "blatantly off-topic" wording is because I agreed with Blunders' comment when I closed it. But in the future, flagging as blatantly off-topic would be totally fine. Always try to choose the best one, but that was the best one here.

@MatthewHaugen Okay, next time I'll use that flag in such a case. But "blatantly" sounds quite harsh, that's why I did not want to use that flag

There's a complicated process by which flags get routed to high-rep users and mods, so it's generally best to use the very closest flag you can find that describes the problem you're having. Sometimes that is "Other," for instance if you suspect voting fraud or some other edge case, or if we decline an "offensive" flag and you want to explain why you used it, but particularly for things like off-topic, it's best to keep it in there. Of course, posting here in chat works too.

@Nero Yeah, I agree. Although for what it's worth, diamond moderators are the only ones who will be able to see that you flagged it as that, or even that you flagged it. Other users will just see "is this question off-topic?" so it's not a huge deal if you pick the wrong one, or if the wording seems a little harsh. But I do see what you mean.

@MatthewHaugen Yep, that's exactly why I did not use the other flag.

@MatthewHaugen Okay. But sometimes I wish I could see which flags were used on posts to learn from them.

Especially on StackOverflow and its Triage queue

@Nero Yeah, that makes sense. The thing is that flags are really meant as a private correspondence--one of the only ones on the site--so even our moderator agreement specifies that we aren't allowed to talk about them. It's less of a big deal in practice for things like off-topic, but the principle carries over.

Although in the specific case of the Triage queue, I think that's mostly the result of automated processes. Flags are a pretty small part of it.

@MatthewHaugen Every click on unsalvageable leads to a flag (or maybe a close vote, but I don't know how this works for 3k+ reviewers as I don't have 3k rep)

and I find quite a lot of these from other reviewers when looking through the items I reviewed

@Nero Ah, yes, the result is a flag, as I understand it. I thought you meant the reasons posts show up there.

But yeah, flags are an interesting matter. There are a lot of special cases in how they're formed and handled, but in general it would be difficult to display them to users without some privacy concerns, and once you hit 3000 rep, there's not much use in seeing them since close-votes are more serious indicators, since they'll lead to actions.

But you're almost half-way to being able to see and cast close-votes here on Startups, so you'll experience that soon enough, I'm sure.

@MatthewHaugen Yep, maybe I'll somewhen hit the 500 here on Startups, but it is hard to find questions I can answer here.

The topic is very interesting, but I am no entrepreneur, so I have only little knowledge about startups.

@Nero Yeah, that's always a frustrating predicament. The standard response to that is typically "make suggested edits!" I've seen some users get several hundred rep points from those. There's almost always something that can be fixed in posts, and it's great to improve the site like that, but it can get tiring, and you want to make sure your edits are meaningful and complete.

@MatthewHaugen I've already done a few of them and also edited tag wikis and excerpts. But for posts, I'm hesitant to suggest an edit just to correct a few spelling errors as they seem too minor for a suggested edit

@Nero The "too minor" rule was always a mess. Don't worry about that. Worry about fixing the post. Some posts only need a few typos fixed, and if that's the case, go for it. If you think they need more than that, then do more. That's the theory, at least. It doesn't play out quite as well on Stack Overflow, just because it's a bigger community with more, let's say "inertia," but here on Startups, I'm sure your edits will be appreciated as long as they fix everything you feel needs fixing.

And if you miss things, reviewers will improve the edits. That's not such a bad thing. As long as you're trying your best and not actively hurting content, it should work out. And if you are hurting content by the community's standard and don't understand why your edits are being rejected, that's what Startups Meta is for.

@MatthewHaugen Okay, thanks. :)

Hmm. By the way, while I was just looking through the unanswered questions, I found this question. Isn't it a better fit for Software-Recommendations?