We don't mark spam to punish the user, we mark it to keep the site clean. So someone who takes the time to repeat content that they have written elsewhere, and just also includes a link to their blog, is helping the site, not harming it.
Also, because this can't be said enough, and just to be clear: you people ROCK! You do great work 99% of the time. It's just that we only ever notice the 1% you miss, and that's when we come and whine at you. :P
The reason this was so shocking to me is that we had an expert user, which our site is really short of. He made some mistakes, and was corrected, and learned to do the right thing. But he was nearly permanently banned from the site because of spam flags.
@iBug That isn't much of a punishment. Especially when compared to what happens to people whose posts are marked as spam incorrectly. They get a -100 and can be banned.
From this answer: Note: For spam and "rude or abusive" flags, do not mark the flag as helpful, as this may cause the post author to be penalized. Instead, clear the flag, which will mark it as "disputed".
One gets a loss of reputation, a permanent mark on their record and a possible ban.The other has a flag rejected and might eventually have to take a break from flagging. That's not a big deal.
That would require us to open the page, go to the mod menu, and then choose the clear flags thing. When handling dozens (or hundreds) of flags, that's frankly too much effort.
And for no benefit other than protecting someone's flag record which isn't an important metric anywhere.
So my opinion is, if a flag is raised in good faith, it shouldn't be declined. If it's a red flag, mark it as disputed so that no one gets punished. Otherwise mark as helpful.
Ooookay. So I tend to agree with the "is spam" decision here, but I also agree with a mod decision to override that and go for helping the user instead.
The original posts were the definition of undisclosed self-promotion; that's spam, and it gets flagged.
If mods think the user will be receptive to being guided and are willing to do that, then declining (preferably disputing, but it's not like that matters a huge amount) is the right decision.
@ArtOfCode Who benefits from that? Personally, I will first inform the user of our rules and only flag as spam if they don't adapt. When the answer is more than just a link, of course. When they've repeated the content from their blog and just linked to it, I will simply ask them to always include their affiliation.
@iBug No. Sorry, but no. Spam flags are the nuclear option. They should be used with care and the only way I have of educating flaggers is to reject the flag.
Yep, and we do the same even when the post is advertising a product. It's common for people to post a link to their own app without disclosure, and we always give them a fair chance to disclose (and the benefit of the doubt if we're not sure whether it's their own app) before we spam-flag.
@terdon In cases like this, yeah, you're right. In a majority of self-promotion cases, though, the user is just there to promote their blog, not to contribute helpfully. You can tell those users to include disclosure all you like and they won't - that's why they get flagged and deleted.
I am a mod on 3 sites and deal with dozens of flags a day. I very simply don't have the time to open each flagged post separately and go through 3 sub menus only to protect someone's flag ratio.
@ArtOfCode First you tell them though. You can't blame people for following rules they don't know. If you've told them and they insist, then it's a clear cut case, yes.
@ArtOfCode I don't think that attitude fits the SE ethos. AIUI, the reason we have suspensions and not permanent bans is because we approach each user with the default expectation that if we give them a chance, they can improve their behaviour and become valued members of the community.
@terdon ah, but here I echo your own argument back to you: we see hundreds of spam posts a day and we simply don't have time to do that in every case. So we go with the majority case. And yeah, sometimes, like now, that means we get it wrong.
@iBug Basically what @terdon said. We're good, but we're not perfect. We're all going to get a decline here and there, but it's not about to get anyone flag-banned, so no big deal.
Oh Yes You Can Use Regexes to Parse HTML!
For the task you are attempting, regexes are perfectly fine!
It is true that most people underestimate the difficulty of parsing HTML with regular expressions and therefore do so poorly.
But this is not some fundamental flaw related to computational th...
You just have to be tchrist or someone else with that level of knowledge and more time than sense of self preservation :P
All I wanted to say was please don't spam-flag helpful content. If it's useful but there's something wrong with it (such as lack of disclosure), alert us with an "in need of moderator intervention" flag. We can interact with the user, get it fixed, and turn them into a good contributor.
We don't mark spam to punish the user, we mark it to keep the site clean. So someone who takes the time to repeat content that they have written elsewhere, and just also includes a link to their blog, is helping the site, not harming it.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad NS for domain in body, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, +2 more: Supreme Boostr is works? by toladasha on askubuntu.com
> Bad keyword with email in body, bad keyword with email in title ---------- Title - Keyword *interested* with email Ad-Estimate-Daily-Reach.png Post - Keyword *interested* with email Ad-Estimate-Daily-Reach.png
> Would not be caught as a post, title or username.
:42482967 > Would not be caught as a post, title or username.
> Would not be caught as a post, title or username.
> Bad keyword with email in body, bad keyword with email in title ---------- Title - Keyword *interested* with email Ad-Estimate-Daily-Reach.png Post - Keyword *interested* with email Ad-Estimate-Daily-Reach.png
CI on 0f651bb succeeded. Message contains 'autopull', pulling...
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad NS for domain in body, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching website in body, +1 more: Supreme Boostr@Where to BUy? by krnatara on graphicdesign.SE
> Bad keyword with email in body, bad keyword with email in title ---------- Title - Keyword *interested* with email aatt.png Post - Keyword *interested* with email aatt.png
> Bad keyword with email in body, bad keyword with email in title ---------- Title - Keyword *interested* with email xxxatxxxdotxxx Post - Keyword *interested* with email xxxatxxxdotxxx
> Bad keyword with email in body, bad keyword with email in title ---------- Title - Keyword *interested* with email Aviation.SE Post - Keyword *interested* with email Aviation.SE