Timeline for answer to Why wasn't this post "spam"? by yivi
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 19:58 | history | edited | yivi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 19:54 | comment | added | user50049 | That link just has Google's UTMs in it, @SecurityHound, it doesn't look like a link that actually gets someone paid. Looks like the author just googled the question and posted a link. It's not an answer (and was deleted) because it doesn't answer the question (if the link breaks, what use is the answer? How does it apply? etc), but it does seem to be an attempt at answering rather than link planting. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 19:53 | comment | added | yivi | @SecurityHound It could have been deleted as being "link only". It doesn't appear that the answer was deleted as spam. Spam/Rude deleted posts are partially redacted, and >10k users need to click an additional link to be able to see their contents. That's not the case here. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 19:51 | comment | added | Security Hound | If it wasn't spam, why did a moderator, delete the answer? It sure looks like spam to me. I mean the link is a referral link. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 14:28 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | I didn't you you don't, @rene . The problem, however, (from my perspective) appears to be the wording of the comment about what "spam" is; and why I've marked the other answer the solution. It seems that my interpretation of the intent was incorrect, but that was due to it's ambiguity. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 14:22 | comment | added | rene | @Larnu I have 1395 helpful spam flags on SO, with 5 declined. I'm pretty sure I didn't know any of the spammers. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 14:09 | comment | added | VLAZ |
@Larnu if the name of the user seems to coincides with the software (tool: Widgetor, user: Widget0r) or the maker of the software (Widgetor by ACME Corp, user ACME). Or check their profile - if it states explicitly "I made Widgetor" or "I work at ACME" or perhaps a link to the product. This should few moments to check. You don't really need to go deeper but you can - check the Widgetor page and list of authors, verify if the username doesn't exist there. If none of these matches, it's likely not spam...just a link-only answer.
|
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:46 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | That does make it very difficult to actually determine if anything is spam though, @ArtOfCode , as without knowledge of the real person, you have no way of knowing that. I personally therefore feel that the comment for spam isn't great, as it's too open to interpretation. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:38 | history | edited | yivi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 100 characters in body
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:34 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @Larnu "does not disclose the author's affiliation" means that someone recommending something they made (or are affiliated with) without saying they made it, is spam. If the author has no affiliation, that doesn't fit the criteria - a recommendation is not spam. It may be "not an answer" and flaggable as such, but not spam. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:28 | comment | added | tripleee | Hormel actually specifically request that we abstain from using the product stylization when discussing unsolicited internet promotions. Personally I could care less what the company thinks, but it's definitely not an argument in favor of doing the opposite. Personally, I simply regard all caps as an eyesore. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:26 | comment | added | rene | Once there is some rep on an account and/or "normal" activity you would indeed go easy with the spam flag. Looks like the account has > 50 rep and some badges @Larnu so unless they posted that same link a third time you assume good faith. It is not only the rep penalty but also an IP ban which is rather harsh if you get it wrong. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:22 | history | edited | tripleee | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Spam is not an acronym; don't write it in all caps
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:17 | history | edited | yivi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 474 characters in body
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:14 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | The fact that asking for tool recommendations is off topic for SO is a completely different point @BillTür ;) | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:13 | history | edited | yivi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 44 characters in body
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:13 | comment | added | Bill Tür stands with Ukraine | "All the answer did was promote a product/service" And that was exactly what the question asks for, @Larnu | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:11 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | You've updated the answer since I made that comment; so it does more address what I'm asking. Effectively you're now saying my understanding of the flag is flawed; that wasn't what the answer you made said before. So you're saying unless someone has evidence of affiliation it isn't spam? I personally disagree with that notion. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:08 | history | edited | yivi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 212 characters in body
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:07 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | I don't disagree that it isn't low-quality as well. But my opinion is that's also spam, and hence why I'm asking why the flag was declined. I don't see how this answer actually answers that question, as it doesn't tell me what about the question doesn't fit the SPAM description. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:05 | history | edited | yivi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 65 characters in body
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:05 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | But the spam flag specifically calls out that the answer "does not disclose the author's affiliation." | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:03 | comment | added | Thom A Mod | "It doesn't appear to be SPAM." Why? All the answer did was promote a product/service. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:03 | history | answered | yivi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |