@SmokeDetector The user posted 5 answers (and 1 spam seed question) recommending the same site within 1/2 hour on 3 different SE sites.
!!/report stackoverflow.com/a/57128976 "The user posted 5 answers (and 1 spam seed question) recommending the same site all within 1/2 hour on 3 different SE sites."
!!/report stackoverflow.com/a/57128932 "The user posted 5 answers (and 1 spam seed question) recommending the same site all within 1/2 hour on 3 different SE sites."
!!/report stackoverflow.com/a/57128918 "The user posted 5 answers (and 1 spam seed question) recommending the same site all within 1/2 hour on 3 different SE sites."
!!/report softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/a/65000 "The user posted 5 answers (and 1 spam seed question) recommending the same site all within 1/2 hour on 3 different SE sites."
!!/report softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/64997 "The user posted 5 answers (and 1 spam seed question) recommending the same site all within 1/2 hour on 3 different SE sites."
@NogShine That question is specifically asking for "DRM-free bookshop with a reasonable stock of English books". Do you feel that the linked site doesn't fit that description? I have not looked closely, nor checked that the books are actually DRM free, and I'm not sure I'd actually consider it a "reasonable stock", but it might fit those criteria. I'm having a hard time seeing that as unsolicited (i.e. spam).
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, +3 more (493): Alpha Femme Keto Genix by erina12 on askubuntu.com
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, +3 more (493): ProLine Keto are normally found by erina12 on workplace.SE
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Mostly punctuation marks in body, Mostly punctuation marks in answer, Potentially bad keyword in answer, and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
I should have checked how many users there were which match ^Anuj$ prior to going through the FP we've seen. On SO alone, it looks like there are > 320 usernames that match. That's just too many.
@Machavity I'm not surprised. @EJoshuaS edited the post to remove the sentence which was asking for help off-site. That sentence, however, was the entirety of what was asked for in the question. Without that sentence, the "question" is just unclear.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, repeating characters in body, repeating characters in title, repeating words in body (272): /delllllllllllllllllllllllll ✏️ by Yuriy on ru.stackoverflow.com
@Makyen I'm not sure that that post is a job offer per se... I think that the correct thing to do in cases like that is to edit that out, comment, and VTC. I don't think that it was deliberate malice in this case, just a badly misguided user who didn't read the help center before posting.
In general, if the R/A or spam part can be easily edited out, we should, right? I think that a hard spam flag would be a bit harsh on that case - at least if it's closed its harm to the site is minimized, plus it gives the OP a chance to do
Still, a hard spam flag seems kind of harsh. There doesn't appear to have been deliberate malice or intent to spam, and the rest of the post is actual content (even if it is unclear). I still think that the OP should be asked to refrain from doing that in the future and given a chance to fix the post.
@EJoshuaS Yes and no. Largely, IMO, it depends on the intent of the post. If the intent of the post is to provide a good question, or a good answer, and has a minor portion that is effectively spam, or which has some offensive words used for emphasis, and you can make a good question/answer with a minor edit, then editing is reasonable.
However, in this case, the intent of the post was to get a developer to help them outside of SO. There's literally no question there, nor anything to hang a hat on as to what a question might be other than the OP's request for a developer to help them outside of SO (or just a "please help me do this big thing").
I'm not disagreeing that applying the spam penalty to the user might be a bit harsh. If I was a mod, I'd probably choose to just close/delete the post w/o applying the spam penalty. IMO, it's reasonable to choose to downvote/close-vote/delete-vote. However, I do disagree with editing out the portion which allows people to evaluate the question for what it really was written as (again, that assumes that you can't just edit that portion out to make an acceptable question or answer).
