Timeline for How to handle surreptitious promotions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 29, 2013 at 17:07 | comment | added | slhck | @syneticon-dj I see. Well, I stand by my opinion that we shouldn't give spammers a platform to post their crap because that'd make it appear like we didn't care. If the post can be disassociated from the user and cleaned up, that'd probably be the ideal solution. | |
| Mar 29, 2013 at 17:03 | comment | added | the-wabbit | @slhk I was not able to find anything specifically mentioning this corner case. But his posts on editing like Asking Better Questions seem to be breathing the "anything [...] that’s salvageable, edit it" spirit. I am inclined to stick to that as I could think of a bunch of good reasons to do so. | |
| Mar 29, 2013 at 0:28 | comment | added | vonbrand | The problem here is that you educate one user, meanwhile 10 new clueless users are forming in line. | |
| Mar 28, 2013 at 14:03 | comment | added | slhck | That being said, this is your community. If you want to handle spam differently, so be it. You could maybe have the question disassociated from the owner if it's worth keeping—but I'd still say that we should in no way encourage these people to contribute to our sites by keeping their content around. | |
| Mar 28, 2013 at 14:01 | comment | added | slhck | Do you have a specific post you're referring to? I'm not aware of any policy of that sort (and even then, Jeff's not in charge anymore :P). I agree salvaging is always an option if there are good intentions in the first place. The post will always be owned by a spammer, and even worse, they can get reputation for the question. More reputation means more privileges, and we did have a spammer who made it quite far on SU, because with more reputation you earn more trust. Don't forget that the review queues now kinda encourage blind upvoting as well. | |
| Mar 28, 2013 at 13:57 | comment | added | the-wabbit | Thanks for the insights. Yet I think that salvaging the question and leaving it on site would have been the preferable approach in this case. Of course I am strongly biased as it was my effort which is now in a deleted answer, but as I understood Jeff Atwoods posts on Meta.SO editing / salvaging should be preferred over deletion wherever possible. | |
| Mar 28, 2013 at 13:47 | vote | accept | the-wabbit | ||
| Mar 28, 2013 at 13:22 | history | edited | slhck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 448 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Mar 28, 2013 at 12:44 | history | answered | slhck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |