I was reviewing some stuff today, and I came across a rather ridiculous answer (see screenshot). I wanted to see the question and other answers, so I clicked on the link, and found that the answer I was reviewing was in fact deleted. Could someone take a look at it?
-
For the record, I'd have up-voted that answer! Just too bad they weren't offering any Discount Gucci Handbags...– GaffiCommented Aug 14, 2012 at 19:55
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
This is the other side of this earlier question.
We throw some real garbage into the queue as "audit" tasks to catch misuse* of the feature, just handle them normally.
*Typically clicking "looks good" or "delete" without reading the post.
answered Aug 14, 2012 at 18:20
-
Neat idea. Looks like you're using spam flag deleted content as an audit?– ZeldaCommented Aug 14, 2012 at 18:32
-
@Ben That's roughly the algorithm right now. It will probably get more subtle with time. Commented Aug 14, 2012 at 18:33
-
4So you'll show answers full of unicorns and permaban the account of anyone that clicks delete?– ZeldaCommented Aug 14, 2012 at 18:41
-
2"just handle them normally." Wouldn't the appropriate action here be to go to the post and flag it (which we cannot do because it's already gone)? There's no option under 'recommend deletion' for commercial spam. I don't oppose the use of 'trick questions', but it's kind of mean to send us searching for the spam flag when the post no longer exists.– TimCommented Aug 14, 2012 at 23:17
-
Can these be made less obvious? Example: stackoverflow.com/review-beta/low-quality-posts/567151 Commented Aug 27, 2012 at 3:38
-
This is completely contrary to the rest of the site. You have an automatic question and answer ban, which counts self deleted posts on it with the justification that of wasted users time. Guess what? Putting that bogus stuff in the review queue is wasting the users time. So why is it OK for the system to waste a users time but not another user? There has got to be a better way to check for tool misuse than this.– BarakCommented Sep 6, 2012 at 22:27