The reason I'm asking is because I've noticed questions getting protected within very short time-frames, sometimes just days.

Take this code golf question for example, asked just two days ago:

Print all ASCII alphanumeric characters without using them

I've noticed this elsewhere too, but I'm citing this one because I've been refreshing that thread and I haven't seen spam appear there. Granted, I might have missed it because it was removed too quickly, but it's clear it wasn't a big spam magnet.

I think it's problematic to close questions that quickly. Between the time before people discover the question and the opportunity and time they need to answer, two days is too short by a far stretch (this applies more generally, I'm not specifically talking about code golf here). I think we're missing out because of this and depending on what the exact reasons for protection are in cases like this (the stated one is too generic), we may need to revise our standards.

Because two days is too short.


I haven't seen spam appear there

If you don't see spam it doesn't mean it wasn't there. Spam is often deleted that fast regular users don't see it. Unless you have 10K+ reputation, you can't see it once deleted. It is also possible that the post referenced has received a few low quality posts which might trigger protection automatically. (As Oded said there are as much as 11 deleted posts. A good indication of something not entirely okay in the posts deleted)

Personally I don't have much trouble with the number of posts getting locked, and age is seldom a factor in protecting. If the post attracts low quality posts within a day of asking the question, it still justifies protecting it.

| improve this answer | |

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