Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Coincidentally, I have found a methodology for OP to save his/her posts to avoid to be deleted.

Whenever the OP find his/her post(not answered) have 1 or 2 votes of deletion, then do

  1. delete the post;

  2. undelete the post.

Warning: Do not leave or refresh when the post is deleted.

If everything goes well, the votes of deletion will come back to 0...

Is it legal? Or a bug?

share|improve this question
    
If this is a bug, then this is a serious bug, and someone should test this immediately. Anyone want to help test this? – Emrakul Apr 3 '13 at 15:36
4  
@Telthien There is a legitimate use for that; a user could delete his own post and edit it while deleted, then undelete. A pattern of doing what the OP suggests would eventually attract community/moderator attention, though. – Andrew Barber Apr 3 '13 at 15:37
1  
@AndrewBarber I'm not sure the delete votes should be cleared, though. If the question has been sufficiently edited, then it won't accrue any more delete votes, and the point is moot. – Emrakul Apr 3 '13 at 15:38
    
@Telthien Once the post has been deleted, existing delete votes are irrelevant. – Andrew Barber Apr 3 '13 at 15:40
2  
@AndrewBarber Not if the user undeletes their question. – Emrakul Apr 3 '13 at 15:40
3  
Is this really that big a problem? – Martijn Pieters Apr 3 '13 at 15:41
1  
@Telthien It doesn't matter who deleted it. A user deleting their own question is almost always intending to leave it deleted, or to edit it and undelete it. In either case, the previously-existing delete votes really should not put the question back on the fast-track for deletion. – Andrew Barber Apr 3 '13 at 15:43
1  
@AndrewBarber Hmm... We may have to leave this as a casual disagreement :P Though that makes sense, I would still argue that a question won't get more delete votes if it's been properly edited. Nevertheless, both solutions work, I think, in this case. – Emrakul Apr 3 '13 at 15:46
3  
@Telthien Agree to disagree; resolved! ;) – Andrew Barber Apr 3 '13 at 15:52
up vote 11 down vote accepted

The exact procedure you describe would be an exploit of the system, and would eventually attract attention from the community and, therefore, moderators.

The basic functionality does serve a potential purpose, though; the OP could delete their post when they see delete votes coming, and edit it to improve it, and undelete it after. That would be a legitimate use of this.

In practice, the exploit would be fairly rare. It would only happen in a rapid-fire situation of closes/comments/votes/deletes. In such a case, the question will tend to have a lot of attention, and the people who delete-voted would be very likely to see what happened, and flag for moderator attention.

share|improve this answer
    
Given this change, is this kind of abuse even possible anymore? – Cody Gray Apr 4 '13 at 1:06
    
@CodyGray I think that once the OP casts a delete vote, it counts as being deleted by them, even if there were other delete votes. I'm not 100% on that from that post or experience, though. – Andrew Barber Apr 4 '13 at 1:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/174994/a-methodology-to-save-your-posts-from-the-risk-of-deletion
meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-22
76273
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:FKKUXFDOIF4QZJYKPFGC2QBRT74FQJZL
<urn:uuid:0faefde9-f0d1-41d7-90b7-0d64c2f7fad2>
2016-05-31T23:51:47Z
104.16.118.182
sha1:4W4M2L6EZ77ZFFP7MU6VYU7EOAAVL3FB
<urn:uuid:56e46c1b-c54b-495d-bd32-78288d796540>
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/174994/a-methodology-to-save-your-posts-from-the-risk-of-deletion
response
<urn:uuid:1eaacd6e-beb0-4698-bb44-d6518e4f8fee>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-185-217-139.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-22
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf