has any moderator so far explained exactly what is crucial in approving the deletion of reported posts?
I guess its all about how obvious is that post reported broke one of the forum rules.
on only 3440 reported posts, I have 14 bad, and 14 unhandled. although I'm pretty sure all unhandled absolutely deserve to be deleted.
That's very low amount of unhandled reports considering how many you reported, and i am sure all of us think the same about our unhandled reports.
I would really like to hear the moderator's opinion on why they left it unhandled. not only in my case but in general for everyone, especially reported by users who have a high percentage of accuracy.
I believe there was already a discussion about this, but I haven't seen the mod's confession until now.
I remember seeing mods discussion it so I looked it up a little bit and this is what I found and its pretty much as I thought it is. So instead giving us bad report in the end, they rather chose to let it stay unhandled so it doesn't affect report percentage.
Yeah, definitely borderline reports are more likely to stay in unhandled status than straight forward cases. I'll need to come up with some examples, which I was struggling for the other day. I was going to do it for my reporting effectively guide I made a few years ago. There's just some instances were a soft bad is more appropriate than handled it as a bad report, and it's usually something along the lines of a borderline case.
One example would be malicious links or distributing malware. While the moderator might agree that it looks malicious, verifying that can sometimes be difficult, and hence they can sometimes go unhandled, which isn't ideal, but verifying something like that is rather difficult. There's a lot of work involved actually verifying whether something is unsafe. Users reporting tend to rely on online virus checkers, but they routinely false flag mining programs as an example.