|
There seems to be a growing incidence of people posting a few, or sometimes a lot of, lines of code, as a solution to an old QA. They are rarely formatted, sometimes just a copy of an existing solution, sometimes totally irrelevant to the question, and even the wrong language. Whilst not actual spam the post is not really a valid answer. I tend to vote them "not an answer" and move on, occasionally adding a spam vote to the user, whilst not reporting them (they may actually be a valid contributor elsewhere, though I doubt it).
So should we vote to kick them off or just leave them to continue with such actions, as it's difficult to keep tabs on them all?
|
|
|
|
|
If the answer is not related to the question in any way, or is just a copy of a previous answer, then clearly the account has to be reported as abusive.
When it is just a bad answer (inacurate/misleading/unclear/incomplete), then only the answer needs to be flagged; it can't be considered as abusive to be wrong/incomplete, or to omit formatting.
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
If it's actually a copy of an existing answer, then I report the answer as "reposted", report the user as "abusive/trolling", and tend to report them here for plagiarism.
Otherwise, I tend to do the same as you: "not an answer" on the answer, possibly with a comment, and sometimes an "abusive" report on the user if they're a repeat offender.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
When you make your report on the individual, would you mind indicating these individuals somehow on the comments? I would report them as abusive and say, "irrelevant answers" or something like that.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
|
What should we do?
There actually wouldn't be any doubt as to whether a post was "spam" or not if QA participants always provided quality answers. That is, in my honest opinion, answers which elucidate the poster's, often times, awkward understanding of his own code. An answerer would therefore have to SEE that code in order to post anything as an answer.
The disconnect comes with QA answerers feeling that anything which they post, a link, their opinion, constructive comment, etc ... is acceptable. Which TYPICALLY makes posting as a COMMENT the appropriate step.
This is what I used to do way back when QA actually had content in it and not just links to content. Links don't appear to help spammers. And think of this thought perhaps "if I spent all my time sleuthing why software programs fail, I'd have no time to program software".
Posters of valid QA ANSWERS should attempt to get an understanding out of the original poster. When none comes after they post a comment, they can then feel qualified to tick the SPAM box. And as you say, be off.
|
|
|
|
|
Bad quality or bad format... I report only the answer with the correspondent option.
Obviously non related, innaccurated or so... I go for both: post as "not an answer / innacurated - misleading / Offtopic" and user as "abuser/troll"
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Messages[^]
One has been modified to mention the spam payload site, but without an obvious link. I suspect the other two would be modified later, if the account survives long enough.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for that. Deleted.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
|
| .
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
