I've recently been on a bit of an anti-spam rampage on Super User. Have you posted a plug for a product you work on but haven't been clear about that relationship? Flagged! Are you linking to spammy sites with no real connection to the original question purely for promotional reasons? Flagged!
The problem is that for some answers I come across, at first glance it doesn't look like spam in an obvious way. I tend to come across answers like these during my lunch break so if I'm not busy I might dive deeper. At that point from searching Google, scanning the target site, looking across the user's profile etc - I will come to the realisation that the answer is spam and then flag it.
When flagging spam I can't provide any details:
I end up having to use the "needs ♦ moderator attention" option and then writing any details under "other":
Could a field be added to the spam flag interface to provide details when they may be useful?
Nine times out of ten I can flag as spam straight-up because it's obvious, but perhaps moderators would appreciate if some of the less obvious reports had a bit of detail attached? Or instead, should I just leave a comment on the original answer and then go ahead and flag as spam?
Yes, I hate spam that much!