Flagging policy on Danbooru

Maybe a little issue, but this should get attention in my eyes.
Yesterday, NWF Renim posted a comment in the Nude Filter topic forum #117146 and that got me thinking that not only "Nude filter" is insufficient as a reason to flag posts, but also other reasons like "Quality check" or "anatomy check". By now, these are accepted flag reasons, but as an janitor, these are reasons I can't really work with. post #2423073 was flagged with the reason "Quality check".
And other posts like post #2420153 have an even worse reason.

So my proposition is just as Renim said in the commen I mentioned above:
If a quality check is needed, the flagger has to tell us why it needs a quality check. Shouldn't be too hard if the flagger is spotting something that need to be checked in their eyes.
And with that, Janitors/Moderators can work much easier with and it may also lower the shitstorm that is coming up in the comment section of flagged posts if the flagger says why they flagged it

Provence in post #2420153 said:

If the flagger doesn't say anything here, I think I'll approve this post.
"Terrible" is not a good reason to "circumvent" an approvel of a Janitor.

I'd like to think that the flagging message or who flagged it has no bearing on whether a post should be reapproved or not.
That there is no "you didn't follow the proper procedures, so the post will be reapproved".

"Nude Filter" is unrelated to the quality of the image itself, and requires some proof. Janitors cannot be expected to inspect every pixel for discrepencies, or hunt down the origin of the image on the internet.

It would be nice if people wrote super accurate flagging reasons, but a simply "quality check" is not that bad. It's just a "I'd like a second opinion on this artwork". And while some people can tell that something is off with the anatomy, they may not be able to pinpoint exactly what is, or they may not speak English well enough to put their thoughts into words.

So I wouldn't warn or punish people for doing that. (unless someone goes on a spree, flagging a large amount of images with "quality check")

It is only an analogy with the nude filter. I don't want that users are super accurate about the flagging reasons, because then I would argue against myself (I myself lack grammer/word when I flag something). And since I flagged something with "Quality check" too, I think that this is a bad way because there is lacking information. Just writing "bad eyes" or "butt looks off" is much better than the general flag term "Quality/Anatomy check". And this doesn't even require super good english skills .

Flagging isn't a bad thing. If a post is truly good enough, then it should be able to pass the quality test from at least two people with the right privileges. If it just ekes by because one particular contributor likes it, or one particular approver likes it, than can it truly be considered good? Everyone is biased to a degree, and getting a second opinion never hurts. It's why the "Upload for approval" option exists for those with unlimited upload rights.

Also, sometimes it's difficult to exactly express what is wrong with the art. Sometimes, I've thought "This looks stupid", but wasn't able to explain exactly what made it that way. In those instances, I just put down something like "poor art" or "quality check" as the most tactful way of saying what I was thinking.

For posts I've flagged, it's fine if the post gets reapproved because that tells me that at least two people with the right privileges liked it, and if it doesn't get reapproved that tells me that it was one of those pictures that just barely eked by.

BrokenEagle98 said:

Flagging isn't a bad thing.

Who said it is a bad thing :P? It is the way it is used and not the flag per se.

So you never could've wriiten that thebody/lines/coloring/perspective etc. looked bad.
If that is so...than I'd evade that by simple pointing out a really bad thing in the image. For example "Quality check because the area where here hands are looks off to me". Still better than a simple quality check reason because it has content. And with that, if one knows some words about describing a picture, it can be flagged. Or simply writing "Hands" or "Coloring" is still better.

Besides...again from the nude filter topic, but with a more general sentence:

Flagging an image though should be more detailed in why they're flagging to begin with. Particularly if said reason may require mods to have to look around to spot details in the image.

Yes, you could say "should", but users have already gotten a neutral/bad feedback when they just flagged it as "terrible", "bad" or something else.