3

Possible Duplicate:
Why wasn't this question automatically protected after 7 deleted spam answers?

As far as I'm concerned, auto-protection of a question happens when there are three deleted answers by users with less than 10 (?) reputation.

This question has five deleted answers already:

But it wasn't protected by Community. Why? What gives? I assume this has to do with the migration status, because I saw other auto-protected questions (so the feature is working).

This question is related: Why wasn't this question automatically protected after 7 deleted spam answers? — here, the answer says:

We will look at adding another threshold around protecting posts with many destroyed users as this could also be a sign of a spam storm / abuse.

But obviously, this hasn't been taken care of.

8
  • Educated guess: Since the users are deleted (or don't exist on the new site), the auto-protection job can't tell whether they are new.
    – a cat
    Apr 21 '12 at 20:31
  • No.. This is always the case for spam users (at least on SU). Note that the last user is deleted although the answer was posted just one hour ago (months after the migration).
    – slhck
    Apr 21 '12 at 20:33
  • I'm not sure how that contradicts me. In my experience, there have to be 3 deleted answers from new users that aren't themselves deleted for the auto-protection to kick in. Obviously if they are deleted, then the system doesn't know if their rep is <10, or indeed if they are separate users. (You could count them anyway, but I don't believe this is being done.)
    – a cat
    Apr 21 '12 at 20:44
  • Okay, I should have phrased differently — the system does check that, even if the users are deleted. We have plenty of questions on SU that are spam bait, and they're all protected, even if the users are deleted. Also, based on the answer in the duplicate question, it should already be implemented, but it's not working here.
    – slhck
    Apr 21 '12 at 20:50
  • Hm. "We will look at" doesn't really mean "we will implement this right now". Also, it was tagged [status-bydesign], not completed.
    – a cat
    Apr 21 '12 at 21:00
  • @Nick Hasn't this been implemented yet?
    – slhck
    Apr 21 '12 at 21:43
  • @slhck - no, because it's such a rare case it's easier to flag for a moderator to add protection than deal with the more numerous false positives this would have. Apr 21 '12 at 21:51
  • @NickCraver Alright then! Thanks for the info!
    – slhck
    Apr 21 '12 at 21:52