Timeline for Should we edit out spam from spam posts?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2016 at 13:43 | comment | added | jlliagre | The six spam flags rule is not obvious or advertized. Without knowing it, I would tend not to flag a post that has already been flagged as spam, somewhat defeating that community automatic moderation. | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 14:13 | vote | accept | bwDraco | ||
| Oct 12, 2011 at 10:06 | comment | added | BinaryMisfit Mod | If anything, as a moderator, I dislike it when I find a post that has been edited with spam removed. It gives the answer unneccessary attention and makes it extremely hard to track down if it's an isolated incident, real spam, or actually in one or two cases an legitimate answer to a question. One man's spam is another man's answer. | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 7:24 | comment | added | Nifle | I'm think obfuscating/breaking the link is a reasonable edit to make. Some spam sites can have a nasty payload to deposit on unprotected computers. | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 4:43 | comment | added | nhinkle Mod | Indeed, another good reason to leave spam as it is. | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 4:19 | comment | added | Rebecca Chernoff Mod | Leaving it as-is also allows for a search to be done on deleted posts (which mods can do via the regular site search) to see how often a term was spammed. | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 3:47 | history | answered | nhinkleMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |