I'm looking for guidance on reviewing answers. I forget whether this example was listed as a first answer or a low quality answer, but I've encountered several with this type of issue. This example has been removed, but it was an answer to this question: hdmi-connected-samsung-monitor-says-not-optimum-mode-recommended-mode-1920x1080. The gist was this:

The question asked about some image distortion on a monitor. A new user posted an answer that was just a link to an external site, and several reviewers asked that a synopsis of the link contents be included in the answer. However, it was the content of that link that worried me. It was a blog or private web site (no refereeing or external comment), that addressed a similar issue, not necessarily even the same one. It described a solution of soldering a resistor onto IC leads inside the monitor. Even if that was an actual solution to the problem, it isn't something most users would be equipped to do and if it didn't void the warranty, the procedure would likely damage the IC and ruin the monitor. Everything about the answer was dangerous, irresponsible, and it was from an unreliable source. It didn't seem like the kind of answer SU would want to promote, so I flagged it for deletion. Two questions:

• My understanding of the review process is that it is not about the content but about the nature of the answer. Rather than censor content in the review, that should be done with downvotes and comments. However, is there some point where it becomes a judgement call? Was flagging for deletion appropriate?

• The answer was later deleted (not clear if this was based on multiple concurring reviews or moderator/high-rep user action). On the flag status view, it lists the flag as "disputed". What does that term mean (that multiple reviewers didn't make the same recommendation for disposition)?

I'm looking for guidance on reviewing answers. I forget whether this example was listed as a first answer or a low quality answer, but I've encountered several with this type of issue. This example has been removed, but it was an answer to this question: hdmi-connected-samsung-monitor-says-not-optimum-mode-recommended-mode-1920x1080. The gist was this:

The question asked about some image distortion on a monitor. A new user posted an answer that was just a link to an external site, and several reviewers asked that a synopsis of the link contents be included in the answer. However, it was the content of that link that worried me. It was a blog or private web site (no refereeing or external comment), that addressed a similar issue, not necessarily even the same one. It described a solution of soldering a resistor onto IC leads inside the monitor. Even if that was an actual solution to the problem, it isn't something most users would be equipped to do and if it didn't void the warranty, the procedure would likely damage the IC and ruin the monitor. Everything about the answer was dangerous, irresponsible, and it was from an unreliable source. It didn't seem like the kind of answer SU would want to promote, so I flagged it for deletion. Two questions:

• My understanding of the review process is that it is not about the content but about the nature of the answer. Rather than censor content in the review, that should be done with downvotes and comments. However, is there some point where it becomes a judgement call? Was flagging for deletion appropriate?

• The answer was later deleted (not clear if this was based on multiple concurring reviews or moderator/high-rep user action). On the flag status view, it lists the flag as "disputed". What does that term mean (that multiple reviewers didn't make the same recommendation for disposition)?