I have flagged this answer as very low quality and my flag was rejected.

VLQ's description is:

This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.

The question is "Can I charge a computer through its USB port?". The answer is composed of few meaningless sentences (something like "buy this thing, it's $20") and a link to a car power inverter on Amazon. It doesn't explain how that inverter is related to the question. It has nothing to do with USB and OP didn't say anything about cars.

That being said, I believe it has a severe content problem and is completely unsalvageable through editing - so it is VLQ according to flag's description.

Was it a mistake or am I missing something?

1 Answer 1


It's still an answer. It may be completely useless with regard to the original question, but it is answering something. The OP was asking for specific makes/models and things that would allow them to charge a computer through USB. An answer consisting of a link to a product is somewhat expected there. Of course, having a picture and an explanation would be nice, but it's not mandatory.

My suggestion is: use the very low quality flag for something that is complete gibberish (and therefore unsalvageable). That's what's meant by "content issues". Not that the content in itself is wrong or lacking, but simply not understandable. Don't use the flag for something that is attempting to answer the question, but just horribly fails at doing so.

The recommended way to go would have been to downvote the post and leave a comment as to why it's not helpful. The poster of the answer is registered here, so they might even check back and fix or self-delete their posts.

  • That thing has literally nothing to do with USB. It's a 12V to 110V car inverter. It's for charging with a regular laptop charger in a car, not through USB and OP didn't even mention that he wants to use it in a car. It's not only useless but doesn't answer the question at all.
    – gronostaj
    Commented Aug 10, 2014 at 14:41
  • It's utterly useless, I agree. But it's attempting to answer a question. That's why you should downvote it. Moderators really aren't supposed to have to read the question and then evaluate whether an answer is suitable or not. Unless it's a clear-cut case, like the OP asking how to dual-boot Linux and Windows, and the answer is saying that they need to buy a WiFi adapter. But even then, a custom flag should mention that, not a standard flag.
    – slhck
    Commented Aug 10, 2014 at 14:49
  • I initially wanted to use the custom flag, but then I read VLQ description and it fitted perfectly: content problems and unsalvageable. Maybe we should do something with that description.
    – gronostaj
    Commented Aug 10, 2014 at 14:53
  • 1
    To be honest, I've personally always wanted to get rid of the VLQ flag altogether. Many people misuse it and just raise the flag instead of voting appropriately. It's often used as a "I don't like this post" thing. (Not that this is the case here, but …)
    – slhck
    Commented Aug 10, 2014 at 14:56
  • Well, this comment thread has been enlightening! I've had a couple of VLQ flags being declined because they are just bad answers, and the line wasn't very clear to me. I hope I'll start using it better from now on. Commented Aug 11, 2014 at 17:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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