7 clarify what you're saying
source | link

Automatic protection Automatically protecting questions from junk answers

Given the many junk answers that tend to accumulate, and the current absurdly low rep threshold for bypassing protection of questions, should questions be automatically protected? I'm not after preventing answers, but preventing spam (counting the congenial "Thanks!").

AgeQuestion age is the most obvious criteria, but I'd also use view count-count. The latter seems the most likely statistic to correlate with questions likely to attract junk (which the technical term for nonsense questions and comments, since it's not quite spam).

I would not want to protect questions with, for example, 100 views and 2 answers, even if one of them is accepted, because it's entirely possible a new user posting an answer there can meaningfully contribute. It might even be more likely, for that new user to have searched and found such a question – it could correspond exactly to an issue of theirs.

Numbers from thin air

As a starting point, 3 month old-month-old questions with 500 views appears okay for automatic protection. I'll see about modifying a SEDE query for stats, unless someone beats me to it.

Starting with a sample query, 500 views may be too high and 3 months may be too old.

Automatic protection from junk

Given the many junk answers that tend to accumulate, and the current absurdly low rep threshold for bypassing protection, should questions be automatically protected? I'm not after preventing answers, but preventing spam (counting the congenial "Thanks!").

Age is the most obvious criteria, but I'd also use view count. The latter seems the most likely statistic to correlate with questions likely to attract junk (which the technical term for nonsense questions and comments, since it's not quite spam).

I would not want to protect questions with, for example, 100 views and 2 answers, even if one of them is accepted, because it's entirely possible a new user posting an answer there can meaningfully contribute. It might even be more likely, for that new user to have searched and found such a question – it could correspond exactly to an issue of theirs.

Numbers from thin air

As a starting point, 3 month old questions with 500 views appears okay for automatic protection. I'll see about modifying a SEDE query for stats, unless someone beats me to it.

Starting with a sample query, 500 views may be too high and 3 months may be too old.

Automatically protecting questions from junk answers

Given the many junk answers that tend to accumulate, and the current absurdly low rep threshold for bypassing protection of questions, should questions be automatically protected? I'm not after preventing answers, but preventing spam (counting the congenial "Thanks!").

Question age is the most obvious criteria, but I'd also use view-count. The latter seems the most likely statistic to correlate with questions likely to attract junk (which the technical term for nonsense questions and comments, since it's not quite spam).

I would not want to protect questions with, for example, 100 views and 2 answers, even if one of them is accepted, because it's entirely possible a new user posting an answer there can meaningfully contribute. It might even be more likely, for that new user to have searched and found such a question – it could correspond exactly to an issue of theirs.

Numbers from thin air

As a starting point, 3-month-old questions with 500 views appears okay for automatic protection. I'll see about modifying a SEDE query for stats, unless someone beats me to it.

Starting with a sample query, 500 views may be too high and 3 months may be too old.

6 edited tags
| link
5 replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Given the many junk answersmany junk answers that tend to accumulate, and the current absurdly low rep threshold for bypassing protectionprotection, should questions be automatically protected? I'm not after preventing answers, but preventing spam (counting the congenial "Thanks!").

Age is the most obvious criteria, but I'd also use view count. The latter seems the most likely statistic to correlate with questions likely to attract junk (which the technical term for nonsense questions and comments, since it's not quite spam).

I would not want to protect questions with, for example, 100 views and 2 answers, even if one of them is accepted, because it's entirely possible a new user posting an answer there can meaningfully contribute. It might even be more likely, for that new user to have searched and found such a question – it could correspond exactly to an issue of theirs.

Numbers from thin air

As a starting point, 3 month old questions with 500 views appears okay for automatic protection. I'll see about modifying a SEDE query for stats, unless someone beats me to it.

Starting with a sample query, 500 views may be too high and 3 months may be too old.

Given the many junk answers that tend to accumulate, and the current absurdly low rep threshold for bypassing protection, should questions be automatically protected? I'm not after preventing answers, but preventing spam (counting the congenial "Thanks!").

Age is the most obvious criteria, but I'd also use view count. The latter seems the most likely statistic to correlate with questions likely to attract junk (which the technical term for nonsense questions and comments, since it's not quite spam).

I would not want to protect questions with, for example, 100 views and 2 answers, even if one of them is accepted, because it's entirely possible a new user posting an answer there can meaningfully contribute. It might even be more likely, for that new user to have searched and found such a question – it could correspond exactly to an issue of theirs.

Numbers from thin air

As a starting point, 3 month old questions with 500 views appears okay for automatic protection. I'll see about modifying a SEDE query for stats, unless someone beats me to it.

Starting with a sample query, 500 views may be too high and 3 months may be too old.

Given the many junk answers that tend to accumulate, and the current absurdly low rep threshold for bypassing protection, should questions be automatically protected? I'm not after preventing answers, but preventing spam (counting the congenial "Thanks!").

Age is the most obvious criteria, but I'd also use view count. The latter seems the most likely statistic to correlate with questions likely to attract junk (which the technical term for nonsense questions and comments, since it's not quite spam).

I would not want to protect questions with, for example, 100 views and 2 answers, even if one of them is accepted, because it's entirely possible a new user posting an answer there can meaningfully contribute. It might even be more likely, for that new user to have searched and found such a question – it could correspond exactly to an issue of theirs.

Numbers from thin air

As a starting point, 3 month old questions with 500 views appears okay for automatic protection. I'll see about modifying a SEDE query for stats, unless someone beats me to it.

Starting with a sample query, 500 views may be too high and 3 months may be too old.

4 Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
source | link
3 Migration of MSO links to MSE links
source | link
2 30 was too low for an example there; added 1 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link