3 added 583 characters in body; deleted 2 characters in body
source | link

UPDATE: Upon reflecting on what fail badp and Nick T said, I agree that the spam flag should not be used in the situation I outlined, or a similar one. For although I personally feel the answer had no place as both a comment and an answer - my problem lies more with the tone in which the statement was delivered, and not what the statement was actually saying. As such, I can see people starting to flag things for spam just because they get a bit "miffed" at what the poster said, or how he said it. And clearly someones post should not be auto-deleted for that, nor lose 100 rep.

I recently came across a (now deleted) "answer" to a question, in which a user simply complained about the current downtime of the Playstation Network. This "answer" is obviously unsalvageable, and contains no content to speak of - and since 6 flags as spam automatically deletes a post, it seems like the best way to handle the problem. However, it does not meet the exact definition of spam laid out by the SE which is:

This question is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant, but promotional.

Furthermore, a statement made by fail badp also seems to support my position:

5 Please, if a post is obviously unsalvageable, contentless spam -- flag as spam. 6 flags as spam delete a post. 200 flags for mod attention don't.

However, I am uncertain if this meant only posts which are advertisement - or any post which is "obviously unsalvageable, [and] contentless"

As such, in cases where a post is "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" is the correct course of action to flag it as spam, so that it deleted all the faster? or is (or should) the spam flag be reserved solely for posts which meet the exact SE definition of spam? If the former is the case, then should the rule be changed to allow flagging "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" as spam?

I recently came across a (now deleted) "answer" to a question, in which a user simply complained about the current downtime of the Playstation Network. This "answer" is obviously unsalvageable, and contains no content to speak of - and since 6 flags as spam automatically deletes a post, it seems like the best way to handle the problem. However, it does not meet the exact definition of spam laid out by the SE which is:

This question is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant, but promotional.

Furthermore, a statement made by fail badp also seems to support my position:

5 Please, if a post is obviously unsalvageable, contentless spam -- flag as spam. 6 flags as spam delete a post. 200 flags for mod attention don't.

However, I am uncertain if this meant only posts which are advertisement - or any post which is "obviously unsalvageable, [and] contentless"

As such, in cases where a post is "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" is the correct course of action to flag it as spam, so that it deleted all the faster? or is (or should) the spam flag be reserved solely for posts which meet the exact SE definition of spam? If the former is the case, then should the rule be changed to allow flagging "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" as spam?

UPDATE: Upon reflecting on what fail badp and Nick T said, I agree that the spam flag should not be used in the situation I outlined, or a similar one. For although I personally feel the answer had no place as both a comment and an answer - my problem lies more with the tone in which the statement was delivered, and not what the statement was actually saying. As such, I can see people starting to flag things for spam just because they get a bit "miffed" at what the poster said, or how he said it. And clearly someones post should not be auto-deleted for that, nor lose 100 rep.

I recently came across a (now deleted) "answer" to a question, in which a user simply complained about the current downtime of the Playstation Network. This "answer" is obviously unsalvageable, and contains no content to speak of - and since 6 flags as spam automatically deletes a post, it seems like the best way to handle the problem. However, it does not meet the exact definition of spam laid out by the SE which is:

This question is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant, but promotional.

Furthermore, a statement made by fail badp also seems to support my position:

5 Please, if a post is obviously unsalvageable, contentless spam -- flag as spam. 6 flags as spam delete a post. 200 flags for mod attention don't.

However, I am uncertain if this meant only posts which are advertisement - or any post which is "obviously unsalvageable, [and] contentless"

As such, in cases where a post is "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" is the correct course of action to flag it as spam, so that it deleted all the faster? or is (or should) the spam flag be reserved solely for posts which meet the exact SE definition of spam? If the former is the case, then should the rule be changed to allow flagging "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" as spam?

2 added 211 characters in body; deleted 205 characters in body
source | link

I recently came across a (now deleted) "answer" to a question, in which a user simply complained about the current downtime of the Playstation Network. This "answer" is obviously unsalvageable, and contains no content to speak of - and since 6 flags as spam automatically deletes a post, it seems like the best way to handle the problem. However, it does not meet the exact definition of spam laid out by the SE which is:

This question is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant, but promotional.

Furthermore, a statement made by fail badp also seems to support my position:

5 Please, if a post is obviously unsalvageable, contentless spam -- flag as spam. 6 flags as spam delete a post. 200 flags for mod attention don't.

However, I am uncertain if this meant only posts which are advertisement - or any post which is "obviously unsalvageable, [and] contentless"

As such, in cases where a post is "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" is the correct course of action to flag it as spam, so that it deleted all the faster? or is (or should) the spam flag be reserved solely for posts which meet the exact SE definition of spam? If the former is the case, then should the rule be changed to allow flagging "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" as spam?

I recently came across a (now deleted) "answer" to a question, in which a user simply complained about the current downtime of the Playstation Network. This "answer" is obviously unsalvageable, and contains no content to speak of - and since 6 flags as spam automatically deletes a post, it seems like the best way to handle the problem. However, it does not meet the exact definition of spam laid out by the SE which is:

This question is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant, but promotional.

Furthermore, a statement made by fail badp also seems to support my position:

5 Please, if a post is obviously unsalvageable, contentless spam -- flag as spam. 6 flags as spam delete a post. 200 flags for mod attention don't.

However, I am uncertain if this meant only posts which are advertisement - or any post which is "obviously unsalvageable, [and] contentless"

As such, in cases where a post is "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" is the correct course of action to flag it as spam, so that it deleted all the faster? or is (or should) the spam flag be reserved solely for posts which meet the exact SE definition of spam? If the former is the case, then should the rule be changed to allow flagging "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" as spam?

I recently came across a (now deleted) "answer" to a question, in which a user simply complained about the current downtime of the Playstation Network. This "answer" is obviously unsalvageable, and contains no content to speak of - and since 6 flags as spam automatically deletes a post, it seems like the best way to handle the problem. However, it does not meet the exact definition of spam laid out by the SE which is:

This question is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant, but promotional.

Furthermore, a statement made by fail badp also seems to support my position:

5 Please, if a post is obviously unsalvageable, contentless spam -- flag as spam. 6 flags as spam delete a post. 200 flags for mod attention don't.

However, I am uncertain if this meant only posts which are advertisement - or any post which is "obviously unsalvageable, [and] contentless"

As such, in cases where a post is "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" is the correct course of action to flag it as spam, so that it deleted all the faster? or is (or should) the spam flag be reserved solely for posts which meet the exact SE definition of spam? If the former is the case, then should the rule be changed to allow flagging "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" as spam?

1
source | link

Is flagging "obviously unsalvageble, contentless" posts as spam appropriate?

I recently came across a (now deleted) "answer" to a question, in which a user simply complained about the current downtime of the Playstation Network. This "answer" is obviously unsalvageable, and contains no content to speak of - and since 6 flags as spam automatically deletes a post, it seems like the best way to handle the problem. However, it does not meet the exact definition of spam laid out by the SE which is:

This question is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant, but promotional.

Furthermore, a statement made by fail badp also seems to support my position:

5 Please, if a post is obviously unsalvageable, contentless spam -- flag as spam. 6 flags as spam delete a post. 200 flags for mod attention don't.

However, I am uncertain if this meant only posts which are advertisement - or any post which is "obviously unsalvageable, [and] contentless"

As such, in cases where a post is "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" is the correct course of action to flag it as spam, so that it deleted all the faster? or is (or should) the spam flag be reserved solely for posts which meet the exact SE definition of spam? If the former is the case, then should the rule be changed to allow flagging "obviously unsalvageable,[and] contentless" as spam?