Timeline for Spammy answers trimmed with edits; links remaining in edit history
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 30, 2019 at 19:43 | answer | added | Tiago Peres | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 7, 2019 at 20:04 | history | edited | Todd A. JacobsMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 7, 2019 at 20:04 | vote | accept | Todd A. JacobsMod | ||
| Jun 7, 2019 at 20:04 | answer | added | Todd A. JacobsMod | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 19:49 | comment | added | Todd A. Jacobs Mod | @Makyen Yes, redaction is an option, but it's got problems too. Thank you for pointing that out. | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 19:35 | comment | added | Makyen | However, the OP editing the post to remove the spammy links can indicate the user didn't intend for the post to be an advertisement. At that point, it should be a judgement call as to if you, and/or the community, feel the post is providing benefit to the site. If I'm familiar with a site and think the OP may not understand SE's policies on promotion, then I'd leave a comment linking to What signifies "Good" self promotion?, some tips and advice about self-promotion, and What makes something spam. | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 19:35 | comment | added | Makyen | Two moderators working together can redact the version which contains the spammy links, which will completely remove that version from the system. That said, in general, spam should not be edited to remove the spam links/contact information. Doing so often results in it taking longer for the spam to be properly handled (i.e. deleted via spam flags or by a moderator). In some rare cases doing so can result in the spammer getting some reputation, which makes detecting the spam harder, making it easier for the spammer to have future spam visible for longer periods. | |
| Jun 3, 2019 at 14:56 | history | asked | Todd A. JacobsMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |