I have had been going through the flag review queue when it pops up. Most of the flags I have seen in the review queue are for things that are blatantly wrong (e.g., spam). In a few cases, however, the flags seem questionable to me or truly incorrect. In 3 of these "questionable" cases, which is a larger percentage of the questionable cases I have reviewed, I have had my flags declined or disputed by a moderator. This leads me to my question of how am I supposed to review flags in a way that makes the moderator's job easier?
As an example, in the two cases that my flags were disputed the original flag that I was reviewing was clearly wrong. The original flag was "closed without comment" from the community user, but there was a comment to the question (potentially added after the flag was raised). I disagreed with the original flag and chose "invalid flag". Should I have skipped these flags?
In the other case the original flag was "not an answer". The answer has since been deleted with a score of -6 so it seems the flag was not unreasonable. Normally, I would not flag answers as not an answer and instead down vote and vote to delete. In reviewing flags I have the choice of agree, disagree, or skip. In this case I decided to agree, but I could imagine someone else disagreeing and flagging it as an invalid flag. I don't see how skipping the flag is useful.
If this is a user interface problem with the flag reviewing system (either on the high-rep user side or the mod side) can it be improved?
To help track down what is happening. The posts in question are