In this case, the links contain more than just a link:
UTM stands for Urchen Tracking Module
utm_source: As the name suggests this custom variable allows marketers to track the source that is sending the visits. If you have partnered with a website then you ...
On Stack Exchange, "spam" has a specific meaning, unlike the way the term is often used on the internet as a whole:
Exists only to promote a product or service, does not disclose the author's affiliation.
The questions you've linked to are very low quality, worthy of being closed and deleted, but they aren't spam. Flagging them as spam would be not ...
I am very happy these questions are fast-deleted and am glad to see we are being given more powerful tools to deal with them.
That said, I have noticed the majority of the questions being quick-deleted are about comparing present vs past perfect, or other benign topics (though still not up to our standards).
I have not noticed any advertisement or abusive ...
Good question, the general guidance in this case is to not edit the post. Looking at the answer below it's different; you stumbled upon a suggested edit adding spam and inadvertently approved/improved it – the right course of action is to reject it as spam/vandalism, and only then edit it.
This issue (whether to edit spam or not) comes up frequently ...
There were several obviously spam posts in the "recent questions" list when I just logged on to ELU.
I know users who've been around as long as me should know the drill by now, but the fact of the matter is I hadn't noticed this meta post before, and I didn't know what I should do.
What I actually did to all 5 spam posts was downvote them and cast a ...
I think the argument in favour of flagging the “zombie wall of text” question as "spam" is that only 6 flags are needed for the post to be automatically deleted.
That question is not your bog standard, very-low-quality, off-topic question. It's "junk", and to me junk = spam, the sooner it's dealt with, i.e. eliminated, the better.
And someone ...
According to Stack Exchange Employee animuson ♦,
We've established in past discussions that abuse of the system qualifies under the offensive flag. Posting gibberish that doesn't mean anything is definitely abusing the system.
We do have to be careful in situations where it's not as clear what the intent of the user is. Someone mashing their keyboard to ...
This particular user has asked some pretty intriguing questions, but the user seems to be more interested in luring other ELUers into spinning their wheels and wasting their time, as opposed to wanting to learn anything about language. The user has also been known to engage in some pretty egregious behavior, such as publishing phone numbers of other members. ...
Being a newbie (exploring), I can't say anything about SE spam specifically, but I would observe that on my own essay website, my tools block vast quantities of bot-written stuff that doesn't seem to have any commercial agenda at all. Someone has called it "beatnik poetry". I can't see the benefit to any flesh-and-blood person behind it.
I don't see ...
My approach to dealing with spam is:
1) Respond quickly, so the spam message is visible both to site visitors and web crawlers for as short a time as possible. (That of course includes flagging the message as spam.)
2) If one cannot instantly delete the spam, nullify the message by editing it to eliminate phone numbers and web links.
3) Replace the ...
I indeed wanted to warn people from getting drawn into our troll’s webs, and my comments and close-votes were not doing the job.
As J.R. correctly surmised, the problem was that it had begun to draw flies, meaning that it was luring the unsuspecting into its devices, and we had neither a moderator nor enough high-rep users on hand to quickly take out the ...
I think the question is fine. And I think a question should be judged on its own merits, not on whoever asks it. I have flagged it to be undeleted. Only real spam should be marked as such: an OK question by a user with a history should never be marked as spam. As to real spam, yes, that should be defaced. But this is not it.
If an answer is downvoted such that it has a net score of -3 or less, then it goes from normal black text to grey text.
Also, downvoting the post probably makes you feel better, like swearing when you experience pain.
One technical improvement that might be useful is for the number of close flags for each question to be displayed (with the up and down votes). Making available a breakdown of the reasons given would also be useful. Why? It just might discourage regular users from answering LQQs if they see that other users have flagged them. I know that it would be helpful ...
At the risk of muddying the waters with (more) facts,
the user in question:
Has been a member of EL&U Stack Exchange for three years,
where he has posted two (other) questions, which
were not self-answered,
contained no links,
contained no self-promotion that I could see, and
appeared to be legitimate, on-topic questions
(although neither was high-...
Regarding your update:
This particular item of spam was not part of the original post. It was a suggested edit.
The spam wasn't posted by the question asker, so if I had flagged the post as spam it would have put a black mark against the wrong person.
This is why I edited out the link.
I'm glad you didn't edit out the link and flagged it, because that ...