7

This question

is the second spam today for some machinery

Worth noting is that the spam accounts were both unused and sat there for two weeks.

  • I have removed that user, so your link is visible only to 10K+ community members. Please flag these for removal when you see them. (fyi - The mod flag queue is slightly backed up recently, so it might take a little longer than usual.) – Kit Z. Fox Mar 25 '14 at 13:36
  • 2
    so I should 1) not edit, 2) just flag and not downvote, right? My question was actually if there are more 15 day old users from the same IP waiting to spam – mplungjan Mar 25 '14 at 13:37
5

I can't go into particulars about how we monitor these things, as I am sure you understand, but my suggested course of action is to flag the post as spam.

You do not need to edit it unless it contains links (in which case, you may remove the links if you so choose) or offensive language.

You needn't waste your votes on it unless you want to. The only advantage to downvoting/close voting is that it reduces the visibility of the post, which may help protect newbie users from stumbling into some nefarious trap.

  • The user is back again. – Andrew Leach Apr 9 '14 at 9:12
  • I flagged this spam post three hours ago, it is still online. I did not edit the contents nor the title but I did leave a comment for visitors to flag and downvote. I'm mentioning this because a few days ago one SE user tore me down aggressively when I edited a spam question, effectively telling me that I had undone all their good work i.e. flagging and downvoting. What exactly is the best and most effective procedure? – Mari-Lou A May 7 '14 at 9:53
4

The "official" stance is that SPAM should not be downvoted since that moves it away from the front page and fewer users will get the chance to flag it. Since enough SPAM flags automatically delete the post, and also bring it to mod's attention, you shouldn't downvote SPAM, just flag it.

The relevant post from meta.so states:

Because downvoting pushes out off the front page but doesn't remove it. This means that it is somewhat less likely to be seen by other active members who could flag it, and therefore kill it.

Downvoting is for bad, unresearched questions. Spam is just spam, it should be spotted and removed ASAP. Hiding it means it might stick around longer then it needs to.

  • I flagged this spam post three hours ago, it is still online. I did not edit the contents nor the title but I did leave a comment for visitors to flag and downvote. I'm mentioning this because a few days ago one SE user tore me down aggressively when I edited a spam question, effectively telling me that I had undone all their good work i.e. flagging and downvoting. What exactly is the best and most effective procedure? – Mari-Lou A May 7 '14 at 9:53
  • @Mari-LouA the point about not downvoting is about questions, not answers. Span answers are different, I see no reason not to downvote and as a 10k user, you should also vote to delete. – terdon May 7 '14 at 11:02
  • Of course I downvoted it. And I flagged it, which means the mods get to delete it. EDIT My point being is that the system is flawed, if we're talking US time, spam is dealt with efficiently, if it's GMT time, spam lives longer. – Mari-Lou A May 7 '14 at 11:05
  • @Mari-LouA mods and 20k rep (not 10, sorry) users, yes. – terdon May 7 '14 at 11:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .