5:47 AM
At the moment, tea discussions still contain links of this format. (I've noticed that links have been changed in posts on the new meta. I did not check the comments.)
Since tqft.net is the website linked in Scott Morrison's profile he is probably the right person to ask.
@ScottMorrison I see that tea is undergoing some changes. I suppose that when they are finished there will be some announcement on meta, so that the MathOverflow users are aware of what has changed and how to link to old discussions?
6:25 AM
BTW the link in Where's the old meta? was not updated it still contains the old link tea.mathoverflow.net.
I'd guess that there is not that much harm in updating this one manually - since it was bumped not too long ago. (I have added the tag - since this is one of the most relevant posts about tea, it seemed reasonable to include the relevant tag..)
As I've mentioned above, there are two more posts where automated edit left the old link: What do moderators do? and Easy research-related questions, and closure reasons again.
8 hours later…
2:23 PM
If I may add a bit more to the previous exchange about recent meta post (flagging problematic links).
Since revision history was now explicitly mentioned in Federico Poloni's comment, I'll add what I see as possible response from the moderator to a flag like this.
I've tried to order them in the ascending order - the higher number corresponds to the stronger position on "how much" are such links disallowed on the site.
1. Leave the post in original state and respond to flag along the lines: "There is no official policy on this, users who feel strongly about this are welcome to edit problematic posts themselves."
2. Edit the post, possibly with leaving some explanation in the edit summary. (With the rationale, that an edit from a moderator seems more "official" than an edit from a regular user.)
3. Edit the post, then request from Stack Exchange employees to remove the revision from the revision history.
4. In addition to the above request blacklisting the string which corresponds to the problematic url. (Which would prevent adding similar links in the future.)
I am not sure whether there are some other (substantially different) possibilities which I missed. But the above shows that the reaction from the moderator in the recent cases was neither the harshest nor the weakest possible - so it can be called a kind of a compromise.
And if I had to estimate the scale of the problem, I'd say that there are about 50 posts and about 50 comments with "links to weird pirate websites". Altogether I've seen 5 occasions where such links have been edited out (including the recent cases).
Even if I largely underestimated these numbers, this is still a very small number compared to the total number of posts and comments on the site.
in MO editors' lounge, Sep 25 at 12:41, by Todd Trimble
@MartinSleziak Thanks for the reminder, and for your patience. Tuesdays are always busy for me, but I should be able to look into the matter this evening my time (US East Coast).
9 hours later…
11:00 PM
11:14 PM
11:52 PM
@ScottMorrison As I have mentioned above, comments still contain the old link: data.stackexchange.com/meta.mathoverflow/query/556789/… (And a few posts on meta were missed in the rewrite.) But I suppose you (and the SE staff) are aware of this.
« first day (1956 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1998 days later) »
