4

I recently failed a First-Post review audit because I "Improperly" wanted to downvote (and then flag as spam) the following answer:

https://stackoverflow.com/a/21457293/27678

While the post may answer the question. The user is also (pretty blatantly) asking for bitcoin donations. They even mention in the comments that this is their real bitcoin address.

I don't understand why, but the answer is highly upvoted, which is probably the reason it got put into the audit queue. I still stand by the fact that I think it's spam. Please correct me so I don't fail more audits like this.

0

2 Answers 2

10

Someone did flag this as spam, so I'll respond to that:

The point of that answer wasn't to spam a donation link, it was to demonstrate a color-rendering technique. He just happened to use the bit.ly donation link that he has in his profile as sample text.

When you flag something as spam, you're asking us to unilaterally delete it. That answer clearly has technical merit, as evidenced by the votes and comments on it. We're not going to delete that (and impose a significant penalty on the user by doing so).

Could he have chosen a better text sample as his example? Sure. But this wasn't part of an orchestrated plan to spam the site, and it is a real answer to the question asked.

As far as being an audit case, I can see reasons why you might want to downvote the answer if you disagreed with its content, so this probably wasn't the best audit case. May I once again promote my audit case disputing suggestion here, if you feel that you should be able to contest these?

1
  • 1
    Thanks, Brad. I agree with your suggestion that there should also be an "this audit isn't correct" button.
    – AndyG
    Feb 28, 2014 at 21:27
3

The answer is highly upvoted because it's awesome. Well, maybe the answer as such is not really all that awesome, but it makes its point in an awesome way. Can you have colours in a JavaScript Console? ... BAM! COLOURS!!!!

And the text used is then a bit cheeky. Given that there is no immediate link, and it's not misleading, I can see the humour in it. If that user would do this on each and every question, we'd have an actual problem on our hands. And in the context of a review I can see where you're coming from. But I personally don't think this counts as spam.

1
  • Thanks, Bart. Checking the user's history, they are not spamming in general or being misleading. I guess it was a kneejerk reaction to seeing someone's bitcoin address being posted in an answer.
    – AndyG
    Feb 28, 2014 at 21:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .