6

When flagging a post spam because of a single URL considered as spam it may be challenging to find the reason for flag, if the post otherwise is well formed.

For example there seems to be a user creating new accounts and promoting his site. The questions are somewhat related but when you access the link, the site doesn't seem to have the problems mentioned at all. Closer look reveals that the site is for downloading pirated software (or maybe something worse masked to be just that).

Should it be added as a public comment or should there be either optional or even mandatory explanation field on this flag type?

| |
8

When in doubt, flag as "other" and add an explanation, especially in a case like that. When applicable, a link to another question with the same spammy pattern in the comments might be helpful as well as it will also notify non-mod users who can then start to close-vote.

| |
  • Thanks for your advice, that's certainly what I should do next time I see it. Maybe the domain could even be blocked if found malicious. as I find it. – Esa Jokinen Apr 4 '15 at 22:07
  • 3
    Unfortunately, we can't create a blacklist for links, but at least low-rep users can only create nofollow links. BTW, I had a second look to the user you flagged earlier, and he definitely is a spammer - the relevant question has now been deleted, and the account put into suspension. – Sven Apr 4 '15 at 22:34
4

Use the "spam" flag when you're quite sure that neither the post nor the user account that posted it have any redeeming qualities whatsoever. The spam flag has side effects such as an automatic downvote, IP blacklisting, etc. So, while we do want to see spam flagged, please be reasonably sure that it is.

If you aren't sure, then feel free to use the 'other' flag and explain in detail. Whatever it ends up being, the moderators will sort it out.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/8047/should-spam-flag-have-optional-hidden-comment/8048
meta.serverfault.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-40
123797
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:6Y3CC7DN7YF4SBAUBO5JPNOEV62N5LXJ
<urn:uuid:84101f5c-4a36-49b1-a173-f5c00aef5e66>
2020-09-27T19:20:06Z
151.101.193.69
text/html
sha1:IXSRIELDRZQDP2UIDN53R5QBQS6PXYO7
<urn:uuid:5c0876e3-f786-4a7b-bb34-edfb3a08d55b>
https://meta.serverfault.com/questions/8047/should-spam-flag-have-optional-hidden-comment/8048
response
<urn:uuid:e896344d-4198-4143-841e-7c872e6e5eb8>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-234.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/