7
$\begingroup$

This post: Market for a rear mount 1913-1914 (Wright flyer type) wood propeller with "Paragon" isignia

... is clearly a sell advert.

I flagged it as spam, going off the "exists only to promote a product or service" line.

Why was my flag deemed incorrect? How should I interpret the intended usage of the spam flag in that case?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree with you that it should be spam, but one possible reason for declining it is that it's clearly a new user who doesn't understand the purpose of the site and who is unlikely to do it again. There's not much to be gained from feeding this post to SpamRam, and the moderators may have felt it better to deal with this another way e.g. by mod-messaging the poster in private. $\endgroup$ – Dan Hulme Jul 29 at 19:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agree wholly that it's off topic, however, it's borderline not spam. It's not exactly asking someone to buy it, but asking where it a good place to sell it. Splitting hairs, I know... Also, agree with @DanHulme's assement. $\endgroup$ – FreeMan Jul 29 at 19:40
  • $\begingroup$ @DanHulme fair, I supposed something like this. Also, what's the SpamRam reference? I have only seen such a wording in the context of DCS, where the AIM-120 is often called SPAMRAAM because F-15 players spam it indiscriminately :) $\endgroup$ – AEhere Jul 31 at 11:12
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ SpamRam is the name of SE's anti-spam system. It blocks accounts, IP addresses, etc. that have posted spam previously, to prevent them posting spam again without community members having to see and flag their posts. $\endgroup$ – Dan Hulme Jul 31 at 12:32
7
$\begingroup$

I declined the flag exactly for the reasons mentioned by Dan Hulme in their comment.

That is a legit new user that was misguided and did not know how to use the site, there is no reason to be so punitive in their regards, closing the question was enough.

Question will be deleted shortly (either automatically, or by a mod).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I understand your reasons, though it does feel a bit odd that a reporting mechanism exists yet is not universally suitable. Does the spam flag automatically cause some kind of ban if accepted? $\endgroup$ – AEhere Jul 31 at 11:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AEhere yes, as Dan Hulme says, the poster's IP is fed to SpamRam, significantly increasing the effort for a user to post again. As for the "universally suitable", no, nothing is, that's why several flag options exists. In this case a custom flag or VLQ flag would have been enough $\endgroup$ – Federico Jul 31 at 11:24
  • $\begingroup$ Right, I did not get what they meant by that. Sounds rather binary, but thank you for the explanation. $\endgroup$ – AEhere Jul 31 at 11:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps it would have been better to dispute the flag instead of declining it? IIRC disputing a spam flag will clear it from the post, without feeding into SpamRam and without counting towards a flag ban for the flagger. $\endgroup$ – NobodyNada Aug 1 at 17:49
  • $\begingroup$ @NobodyNada not exactly. In order to dispute the flag I would have had to first accept the flag and then clear it. The end result would have been the same and the number of clicks needed triplicated. $\endgroup$ – Federico Aug 1 at 18:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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