Timeline for What's the right flag if a link has malware
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2012 at 9:31 | comment | added | slhck Mod | We usually discourage editing out the link as keeping it in the post (even when deleted) helps tracking abuse, whereas you could never find the URL later through search when it was removed from the last revision. Adding a warning notice might be more adequate. | |
| Oct 21, 2012 at 9:30 | history | edited | slhckMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 24 characters in body
|
| Oct 19, 2012 at 3:32 | vote | accept | Journeyman GeekMod | ||
| Oct 18, 2012 at 11:23 | history | edited | Mad Scientist | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 132 characters in body
|
| Oct 18, 2012 at 10:18 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | @JourneymanGeek The question is about an obvious spammer, in the case of an accidental bad link editing out is enough | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 10:01 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | spam flag also results in a auto rep drop. I'd rather use a custom flag there if I'm convinced its a legit user. | |
| Oct 18, 2012 at 9:56 | history | answered | Mad Scientist | CC BY-SA 3.0 |