How can hanging a queen be a mistake but not a blunder?

My opponent did it just now and the icon that flashed up when rewatching was the yellow 'mistake' glyph rather than ??

Move 23...

I just don't get how it's not a blunder when my knight is sitting there waiting to help himself.

because white was winning by so much anyways, it didn't really impact the game much.

Still odd though because taking that queen allowed me to zip up the board and start attacking without the threat of that queen coming after me. Before that I was backed into a corner with few options.

Because white had a completely winning position even without a queen, he was up by too much material (2 rooks, 2 minor pieces and a pawn for a queen). He only lost because he played badly afterwards.

That's weird and counter intuitive but I'm trying to get my head around it

Oopsey. No I didn't know that

I think possibly the fact that one rook was boxed in high up in the corner played a part. One queen vs two rooks would have been hard to deal with.

OH...thanks. I understand now - I was wondering what you meant about the rook move

Hanging your queen is not always a blunder.

Case in point!

1.Re1 would hang the queen, but would not be a blunder.

That's a deliberate sacrifice to get at the king though. This was just a case of oops I didn't see that knight.

I understand that perhaps this is a case of me overrelying on queens though

It's not the best move but it can be considered a legitimate sacrifice to advance the game because White is still in a dominant position after trading the Queen for the Kinght. The reality is that at your current rating it was very difficult to convert that into Checkmate, however a stronger player would've easily won as White after trading the Queen for the Knight. After the trade, the best play for White would've involved working the Black King while developing pieces on the left side of the board. The two Rooks, Bishop and Knight could've easily overwhelmed the solo Queen.

Once in a dominant position it's often a good strategy to trade off pieces, even if at a material loss, providing that the resulting position is winning. The initial trade isn't the easiest path to victory so it should be considered a Mistake but it's not the critical error which lost the game.

Thanks for re-explaining further because I've honestly been left confused. I was wondering how the hell the move could be anything but a blunder when it opened the way for me to go on the rampage with my queen taking pieces left and right. I'm mid 600s so I wouldn't know how a stronger player would go about converting as White.

Essentially if you're in a completely losing position, chess.com makes it so that things like hanging a queen or blundering mate in 1 are only mistakes, likely since you're already completely lost so you can't really throw the position

The inverse can happen in a completely winning position. After hanging the queen, white still had a completely winning position, so it wasn't counted as a blunder

Stockfish doesn’t compare candidate moves, but instead Stockfish compares the evaluation of the positions that each move leads to. This distinction might sound trivial, because intuitively there shouldn’t be much difference. But in positions that are completely winning (or completely losing) there is a difference. 
Stockfish is strong enough to win more than 50% of positions that are above +1, Stockfish will definitely win most positions at +2 and is almost unstoppable at +3. This means that Stockfish will be guaranteed to win any position that’s +9, just as likely as +18. From a human perspective it’s a mistake or even a blunder to lose the Queen, but to Stockfish it hardly matters in positions that are so overwhelmingly winning.
One way to better understand the evaluation of the position you shared is by following every alternative candidate move with the help of the engine. I’ve tried a couple of them and my preliminary conclusion is that the black Queen has almost nowhere to go. Besides the fact that the Queen is needed to guard the Knight, playing the ‘safest’ options put the Queen in very passive positions. No matter what black does, with white’s 14 point material advantage every line will have a terrible outcome.

Holy crap now you play those out they seem so obvious

A while ago I bookmarked this topic, because I wanted to look into it a little deeper. My reaction was good enough, but I was looking for a more precise answer. The chess.com documentation explains it well enough.

Move classification

Classifying moves is a mix of art and science. Where is the line between a good move and an inaccurate one? How is a blunder defined for a chess master compared with a new player? What matters more, going from +2 to +1 or from +0.7 to +0? What engine evaluation is needed for a position to be considered “winning”?

With ClassificationV2, Chess.com has moved to an “expected points” model, rather than strict evaluation differences, to answer these questions. 

Expected points uses data science to determine a player’s winning chances based on their rating and the engine evaluation, where 1.00 is always winning, 0.00 is always losing, and 0.50 is even.

Basically, at 1.00 you have a 100% chance of winning, and at 0.00 you have a 0% chance of winning. After you make a move, we look at how your expected points (likely game outcome) have changed and classify the move accordingly. The table below shows the expected points cutoffs for various move classifications.

What does this mean? 

Moves are classified based on how they impact a player’s winning chances. A move is a blunder if your chance to win the game drops by more than 20%, a move is a mistake if your winning chance drops between 10 and 20% and an inaccuracy means your winning chances drop by 5-10%. I didn’t fully realize the implication of this system until I did a little test using your game.

Your game

What I did is take the PGN of your game and copy pasted it into the analysis tool with one adjustment. I increased the Elo rating for each player by 1000. This means that the analysis is performed based on the assumption that the game was played between a 1665 rated player and a 1675 rated player. There are two positions that clearly illustrate the difference. 

Position 1, move 7.

The move 7. Nxe4 is an inaccuracy in the original game, which means that black’s winning chances drop by up to 5%. In the alternate game, between two players rated higher by 1000 the same move would decrease black’s winning chances by more than 5% (up to 10%). Which makes sense because a higher rated player doesn’t need as much advantage as a lower rated player.

Position 2, move 32.

This one is even more interesting. White plays 32. g3 and the evaluation changes from -.4.63 to -M5. This looks like an obvious blunder. However, in a game between two 1600+ rated players it’s considered only an inaccuracy. White’s winning chances drop by less than 5%. The reason is that in a game between two 1600s an evaluation of -4.63 is already overwhelmingly winning and a forced mate only changes the winning chances by a couple of percent. 

To summarize. 

As I commented earlier in this topic, in positions that are totally winning or totally losing the analysis behaves differently than you might expect. For example, if you are in a dead lost position, you can no longer blunder. No matter how awful you play, no move will impact your winning chances enough to be considered a blunder.

Regarding your initial question. You were already winning when your opponent played 23. Qg6. Even though the evaluation changed from +6 to + 14, your chances to win only increased by more than 10%, but less than 20%.

Wow. Thanks for taking all that time to analyze @Duckfest.