I'm not the moderator that handled your flag, but here are my thoughts on this:
Generally, I'm of the view that we (moderators) leave the Not An Answer (NAA) and Very Low Quality (VLQ) flags to be handled via the review queues for a decent length of time, unless the post is obviously NAA or VLQ. Where we do take action, we should expect to defend the ...
The flagging guidance text for the very low quality (VLQ) flag option says:
This answer has severe formatting or content problems. This answer is unlikely to be salvageable through editing, and might need to be removed.
In other words, flagging a post as VLQ indicates that you think the post is beyond help, and should be deleted.
If you don't think that,...
I am the moderator that handled the flag, and here's my thoughts:
I honestly don't recall what was going on in my head at the time I handled the flag. I just couldn't tell you. I can guess tho ...
I didn't think the answer was TERRIBLE, because the user could very well have come back and added more detail. There is a case to be made that NoSQL is a valid ...
Should the flag not have been helpful as it pointed out the need for the post to be edited to answer the question?
I'm generally pretty generous when deciding whether to mark flags as helpful or not, but in this case I felt that the better decision (on balance) was to decline. This sends a message that the flag used was incorrect, whereas marking helpful ...
No, there is no way to un-flag a post (I suspect to avoid boy who cried wolf syndrome).
Hopefully, if you realize the post should not have been flagged, so will the moderator who comes upon the flag and handles it.
Using public information, you can see:
The identicons are the same
Both users were created today
Both are unregistered
So it is reasonable to assume there is some sort of connection, and might well be the same user. When you see a low quality post that can be salvaged, you can do one or more of:
Vote to close
Comment to constructively suggest ...
I declined the flag, because I took it at face value - "impossible to answer" seemed to me to require domain knowledge that there is no reason to assume a moderator should have.
Community closure seems to me to be the correct result here, don't you agree?
Please don't hesitate to flag content that you think requires moderator attention - but the process of ...
Pitching in a day late and a dollar short, and I was gonna do a comment but I wanted a little longer context, and as this is meta, it's usually ok.
There's something to remember when it comes to flags and that is that they are metrics that SO uses to build better algos, and to see where improvements need to be made to their system. We moderators do try to do ...
There's an FAQ on Meta Stack Exchange about when to use what flag: What are the “spam” and “rude or abusive” (offensive) flags, and how do they work?
Specifically, this looks like a use case for either the Not An Answer or the rude/abusive flag:
It should not be marked as spam when:
The post contains no useful information, such as an answer that says “I ...
The flag was declined by a moderator since the flag is to be used only for questions that need moderator action. Deleting a post does not require moderator action, it only requires trusted users to vote to delete the post, as happened to this one.