There's a potential troll who posted the following question. In addition to the text currently being gibberish, there's no real value as far as I can see to keep as there are undoubtedly at least one or two basic duplicates. Please consider deleting this question.
@SmokeDetector This answer, as I just saw it, just repeated the user's name many, many times, so I down-voted, flagged it as being rude and voted to delete it.
@AmaanM No worries, when the question opens for deletion, if it's not improved by then, your answer will go with it. Would you like me to suggest alternate questions for you?
Yeah, it isn't a very good answer, but none of the flag reasons apply. Downvoting is appropriate, and commenting for further clarification if you think furhter clarification can help the answer is preferable to delete voting immediately.
@Peter, @XanderHenderson: I have also given many answers which contain links to my blog posts, however the answer is self contained and link to blog is get more detailed information
@ThomasMarkov Very strange. I don't see your flag in the history of that post.
@ParamanandSingh Again, without reading the answer in question, it appears that the link is upfront, but they explain it in the answer. The answer might be wrong, or otherwise not very useful, but the basic structure of the post looks fine to me.
@ArcticChar Open for deletion and definitely off-topic. The answer is good , but unfortunately the question is too opinion-based , so I decided not to upvote the answer.
And yet, the flag dialog claims I did:
It's not every post, but it's a lot of them. For instance, this question and this now-deleted answer (though it stopped showing up on that answer once I flagged it as NAA).
A few other users noticed the same thing, with one person speculating that it might...
PSQ Please leave an improvement comment. It's important that our first action be positive. I can't because I've already left a couple elsewhere and I can't have an inbox filled with replies, my mother thinks this is a matrimonial site so she'll be overwhelmed.
@ThomasMarkov I mean, she doesn't "read" it, but she always says : "you got xyz number of replies or whatever". She's never seen the SE page open, but the notifications tab on Windows 10 for me pretty much has only MSE notifications, so she only sees that number and reports it to me if I'm in the kitchen or something. She thinks this is a matrimonial site, but life is funny, and apart from mat, nothing else matches.
PSQ Improvement comment is present, I also have no clue how first comment isn't an acceptable answer, for example.
@TeresaLisbon As to how it may be that answers may be posted after a question is closed, please see Submitting an answer to a closed question (and there are other related questions on the Meta site). Its accepted answer states it's a server side check, with a grace period of up to 4 hours allowed.
@Peter I agree, @Peter. Furthermore, @Xander, it is an old answer to a post from six years ago, so the standards for answers are higher. The asker already accepted an answer upvoted forty times. A link only comment would be harmless, but what's posted withing the given answer, not counting whatever is at the link, is far less thorough than the accepted answer. This site frowns on depending on links to do most of the work for the answerer.
@amWhy The question was "Is this spam?" The answer is "No, not as defined by the SE network." I repeatedly said that I was not commenting on the quality of the answer---I was attempting to very narrowly address the question of what is or is not spam.
I agree that new answers to old questions should get greater scrutiny.
I had not even noticed that aspect of this answer.
@XanderHenderson I agree that it is not spam. I added comments as to why I think the post is delete worthy. That's all. And when I said, "I agree to Peter", I meant I agreed that the post should be deleted, and added my justification. Please chill.
Please vote to delete the VLQ PSQ. Two answerers, both upvoted, one answerer flagged due to repeated offenses after many comments, and the other answerer getting a warm and fuzzy message from me, including a link to the EoQS. But the question needs to go, to save mods work in handling flags to answerers, to poor quality questions like this, right, @Xander.
@amWhy "It would be super-duper wonderful if you consider reading the Enforcement of Quality Standards on meta.math.se. Have a wonderful day!" :'D (+1)
@vitamind For the few posts that I see before someone else flags them, I have the copy-pasta
> "This question seems not to meet the standards for the site. Instead of answering it, why not look for a good duplicate target, or help the user by posting comments suggesting improvements? Please also read the meta announcement regarding quality standards."
This question seems not to meet the standards for the site. Instead of answering it, why not look for a good duplicate target, or help the user by posting comments suggesting improvements? Please also read the [meta announcement](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/33508/) regarding quality standards.
6
Oh, shoot; I killed the link.
Hang on...
I don't know that this question is unclear enough to merit a mod-hammer, but I am (a) confused by the question, and (b) not convinced that any of the answers actually answer the question. Does anyone else have an opinion?
@XanderHenderson Thanks for posting it here. I saw you post it elsewhere, but since I no longer feel welcome there, I could not refer to it. So I thought I'd error on the site of saccharine sweet, rather than risk being warned from a particular ummm, someone in a position to flaunt his power. Full disclosure, I am not referring to Xander.
@vitamind Hey! I'm being extraordinarily sweet today! Glad you liked it!!
@XanderHenderson I voted to close the question as "needs clarity and details", but have not downvoted. I appreciate your comments to the answerers, too.
@Xander are you around for five minutes yet? If not, no problem. I just flagged a comment that seems suspicious to me, in which the asker replies to my comment to an answerer. I flagged so any connection between the asker and answerer could be examined. See the comments below this post.
Code ksjzhvabahsnx
Hdjdjkslqjsvvdbsns
Jsjdooshgq
English jsnnxnsnsnsnsnzmmznvmcmxmxhgahs
