Timeline for What should I have done with this spammy answer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:16 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 8:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.superuser.com/ with https://meta.superuser.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 8:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.superuser.com/ with https://meta.superuser.com/
|
|
| Feb 20, 2016 at 22:44 | comment | added | Mokubai Mod | @Hastur In some cases maybe. If all the link says is essentially "Come to my blog for the answer" then no, it's not really any use to anyone but the blogger and it would be better for someone to post a real answer here and delete the blog spam. The other side of the coin of "This hotfix/patch/incantation fixes it" then it possibly might be worth keeping, but it would be good to state why it will fix it. If the only thing you are achieving is to push people away from this site and to some other site then you've possibly missed the point which is to grow this awesome community. | |
| Feb 20, 2016 at 12:52 | history | edited | MokubaiMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 169 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2016 at 8:26 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | Quite often yes. But not always. Don't forget, while enough flags marking a post as spam results in an auto deletion, if there's any reasonable doubt, a moderator will probably look at it. If there is proper disclosure and the main purpose of the user posting here is not spamming and it is on topic and it is a quality answer, I see nothing wrong with it. It is not that simple. The best way IMO to deal with a link only answer is to comment, optionally downvote, and to *post a proper answer. | |
| Feb 20, 2016 at 8:04 | comment | added | Hastur | @mokubai "strongly discouraged" not forbidden... is it not better the link than nothing? We should comment with the invitation to complete or complete by ourself (or we can post the same link with the explanation as another answer after a netiquette time of ...xx days). Am I so far from what we can really do in practice? | |
| Feb 20, 2016 at 8:00 | comment | added | Hastur | @JourneymanGeek Can self promotion (in general) be considered spam? | |
| Feb 20, 2016 at 7:35 | comment | added | agtoever | Very informative! I didn't understand the consequences of the spam flag until this meta post. How should a new reviewer learn about this? Maybe adding a "(use with caution)" warning to the flag text might be instructive? | |
| Feb 20, 2016 at 4:31 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | In theory. Spam flags however are a nuclear option - and I don't see a clear intent to spam. Linking to a product dosen't always mean its spam | |
| Feb 20, 2016 at 4:26 | comment | added | Ben N | @JourneymanGeek That makes sense. If there was a way to mark a flag helpful without actually doing what it calls for, would this kind of situation be a good time to use it? | |
| Feb 20, 2016 at 1:27 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | I'm the moderator who handled it - and I can't really add much to this answer. And yes the flag was rejected primarily so as not to feed noise to the spam filters | |
| Feb 19, 2016 at 22:49 | history | edited | MokubaiMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 18 characters in body
|
| Feb 19, 2016 at 22:29 | vote | accept | Ben N | ||
| Feb 19, 2016 at 21:25 | history | edited | MokubaiMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 164 characters in body
|
| Feb 19, 2016 at 21:19 | history | answered | MokubaiMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |