Meta Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for meta-discussion of the Stack Exchange family of Q&A websites. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
When flagging, there are two special case options: spam and rude or abusive.
Note for moderators: some sites, including Stack Overflow, have more permissive, overriding guidance on the handling of these flags.
A post should be marked as spam only if it promotes a product, service, or similar; and is unsolicited or lacks disclosure of affiliation.
Due to the way search engines work, this includes links. For example, an otherwise normal post that contains a link to a website only in a punctuation mark is still spam.
Unsolicited means that mentioning the product serves no purpose other than promotion. For example, if an answer mentions software that may solve the asker’s problem or a question about web programming references a website as an example, this is not unsolicited (it may still be spam if there is an undisclosed affiliation).
Lacks disclosure of affiliation means that the author is clearly affiliated with the product but does not disclose their affiliation. Note that a simple “my” may suffice. However, the disclosure must happen in the post itself; the author’s username and profile do not count.
If an otherwise valid post contains an apparent spam link and especially if the bulk of the post is plagiarized from another post or from an off-site source, flag as spam (example). Do not try to salvage the post by removing the spammy content. If you're unsure, you can often find the original source with a Google search of its first sentence.
Be specifically cautious when judging posts falling into this category. Sometimes it may just be an innocent user leaving a signature trying to get some SEO. (Related)
It should not be marked as spam when:
The post contains no useful information, such as an answer that says “I don't have any idea how to solve your problem”. Flag as not an answer instead.
It contains only gibberish, such as “sdhsgfdhsfdshs”. Use the rude or abusive flag for these cases. See below.
A post should be marked as rude or abusive (formerly known as offensive) if it contains hate speech, obscenities, abuse against people, or abuse of the community or system, i.e., a clear violation of the Code of Conduct.
Abuse of the system or community is everything that is created with the intention to harm them. This includes posts by new users that contain no useful content at all – i.e. gibberish posts along the lines of:
asdasdasdasdasdasdasdasdasdasdasdasd
As a rule of thumb, everything that would be out of place in polite discourse is rude or abusive.
If an otherwise valid post contains vulgar words as an expression of frustration, edit the bad part out instead of flagging the entire post as rude or abusive. If this results in an edit war or rollback war, flag for moderator attention.
Note that this is very different from handling an otherwise salvageable spam post.
Do not use this flag if:
The post criticizes somebody or something in a civil manner.
The post is a (civil) rant in disguise. If any part of the post can be salvaged, edit out the rant-y parts. If not, vote or flag to close as Opinion-based (for questions) or flag as not an answer (for answers).
Somebody appears to have posted nonsense due to an innocent mistake such as a copy-and-paste error.
The post blatantly violates other site rules. This is what downvotes, close votes, and other flag types are for.
The post is talking about rude words, such as writing code to filter profanity or objectively discussing the meaning of the rude words (example).
The exact definitions of these terms are given above and the distinction can help moderators handle these flags if the problem is not blatantly obvious. (Note that if the spam or abuse is hidden, it may be necessary to elaborate this in a custom flag.)
Otherwise, the system does not differentiate between these flag types when counting the number of flags it has towards the thresholds to automatically delete. There are a couple of unrelated cases where the system does differentiate between these flags:
Deleted answers with at least one helpful spam flag count towards automatic protection of a question. Answers with helpful rude or abusive flags, but no helpful spam flags, don't count.
If a post has a single helpful "rude or abusive" flag, it won't be used as a review audit in the review queues, to prevent NSFW posts from cropping up as tests.
Spam or rude or abusive flags ("red flags") receive an extremely high priority in the moderator flag queue and come with severe penalties:
Each red flag, during its validity, carries an implicit downvote from the Community user, which does not affect the flagger’s reputation. This also limits the visibility of posts: on main sites, questions with a score of -4 or lower aren't shown on the front page (-8 on meta sites), and answers with a score of -3 are grayed out.
Upon receiving six red flags, the post will be locked and deleted, and the author will lose 100 reputation. (Locking means that users with the moderator tools privilege (“10k users”) cannot edit or undelete it.)
The contents of posts that were deleted and got at least one helpful red flag will be masked from 10k+ users: the content isn't shown on the post itself, but can be browsed to in the revision history.
Questions that are deleted automatically by the system in response to six red flags, or one from a moderator, also receive more masking than normal deleted posts: the list of potentially related posts in the <10k 404 page won't be there, and the title is stripped from the URL to the post.
You can retract spam and rude or abusive flags like all other flags. These flags do not expire. (Previously, they expired after two days or four days.)
Rolling back a post to a previous state will revert to the number of rude or abusive flags from that particular revision. This allows the author (or someone else with edit rights) to rollback a post to which someone else introduced rude or abusive content in a later revision. (This does not apply to spam flags.)
Red flags can be cleared by moderators, whether active or already dismissed. This will cause the flags to be marked as disputed, even though they may have been marked helpful in the past. Since these flags impose a heavy penalty on the post and its author, a special mechanism is provided to clear borderline flags without penalizing anyone (declining the flag would penalize the flagger).
In addition, this is sometimes used to remove bad audits from the review queues, as helpful spam flags can cause the posts to become review audits. (While only posts that are actually deleted by the system in response to six spam flags are fed into the queues as known-spam audits, some spam is too subtle to expect reviewers to catch and can result in failed audits even if the reviewer is paying enough attention to ordinarily pass.)
For reference:
At first this appears to be potentially a bad mechanic. An offensive edit would cause the OP to get punished with automatic rep loss. If the community isn't paying attention they could flag spam and cause unwarranted damage to the first revision owner.
There are ways to counter this. Before it reaches 6 flags, an editor could revert the edit and the flags would be revoked. However, if the 6 flags occur fast, or a mod flags, there's no chance to intervene.
The reasoning is in how edits can occur.
Any outliers to the above can be corrected and revoked by moderation.
Going with the above understanding, an editor is trusted. Likely they are trying to improve the post. So if they fail to completely improve the post and leave behind overlooked offensive material, they would incur the penalty in the suggested alternative system.
It is still likely for offensive material to get placed in an edit.
Considering the poor performance of reviewers quickly approving edits. It is possible that a malicious edit carefully hidden from first glance can be unintentionally approved. Resulting in the above problem.
If these suggestions are followed, we can avoid misdirected punishment and save correction efforts by moderation.
