The post was edited, so might have been one of the ones where the spam links were added later, or without the user's knowledge/intent.
The post's format looks very similar to one's we've seen like this: a horizontal rule, then some spam links. There appear to be many like that which have what appear to be completely innocent questions or answers, just with the spam links added in that format. I've seen ones where the OP edits the spam out, too. I've left comments asked a few of them if the spam was something they intended and help in tracking down how it happened, but I've never gotten a response.
@Undo While it's not as easy, you can just hover over the feedback markers provided by AIM. Doing so also gives a bit more through view of all those users giving feedback, rather than just the fastest person. However, I do agree that some success criteria, or, more generally, some way for us to measure the overall issue, would be helpful.
hm, maybe some significant drop of the invalidated feedback average the entire time after the change, compared to an equal amount of time ending the moment the change happened?
Another suggestion to remove the gamification is to delay the feedback printing for 30 seconds, most people who try to game it won't be ready to wait so long, but its still instant when you want to see who's in the room
@Makyen yeah, might be a problem, even with a record... how do we separate between feedbacks changed because of a misclick or a little bit of confusion and feedbacks changed because of extra thought?
@EriktheOutgolfer That's a good point. I'm undecided if what I mentioned should be a criteria, but I did want to point out that there are cases that are not recorded in the MS database.
@Undo survey idea: has the recent change you'll definitely see in a jiffy has 1) affected you in a good way 2) affected you in a bad way 3) brought some weird unidentifiable feeling to you 4) changed nothing on you... :-P
um, no
actually, this was the reason the tpu- post was found ;-)
@Undo I was under the impression that we agreed there were instances where individual people didn't put in enough time/effort to determine the correct course of action (e.g. the recent example where I was one of those people). The lack of finding an example was for a case where multiple people A) didn't put in the time, and B) made what ended up being the the wrong choice, and C) enough people did so that was a post deleted that should not have been deleted.
What happened with the idea that in the extremely rare case a post is wrongfully nuked that a custom mod flag would be raised? Or did I misinterpret that?
Something works now. Lack of finding cases where the system didn't work, as a whole, tells me we shouldn't change a bunch of stuff to fix the individual problem.
Ways to nudge people? Sure, why not. But they should be driven by measurable stats, to make sure we're not eeking out 0.01% in one department and losing 5% in another department
Well, let's watch the domain and see if we get more posts linking to it, which would tend to indicate that it's spam rather than someone just linking to a site where they found some advice.
hardwarerecs site as a whole just begs for unsolicited spam xD. It felt weird when I posted an answer to my own question linking directly to a product (fortunately SE gets referral bonuses from Amazon, so it didn't feel that weird).
