1

I flagged this post as spam because:

  • it is plagiarized from here and has a spam link (totally unrelated both to the question and to the answer itself) at the end (typical technique spammers use).
  • the username is spammy and the spammer's profile image is related to the URL (both about news)

However, my flag was declined. Why?

  • The answer was nuked anyway. Maybe the mod made a mistake? – user82665 Oct 17 at 19:57
  • 1
    I did not handle that flag, but based on the timeline, I think this was an honest mistake. That was subtle spam; most of what we see is pretty blatant. – mpdonadio Oct 17 at 20:56
  • The spam flag is for posts that promote a product or service without disclosing the author's affiliation. When a post is flagged as spam, moderators looks for any promotion, not for plagiarism. If you find any plagium post, use the custom flag and explain what the problem is, including a link to the plagiarized post. – kiamlaluno Oct 18 at 22:00
  • As for qualifying spammers basing on the usernames, see Usernames as Advertising or Spam? where the answer from Robert Cartaino (Director of New Community Development) clearly says a username cannot be used to qualify a user as spammer. – kiamlaluno Oct 19 at 10:11
  • 1
    @kiamlaluno sure, I've read that, but if you see suspicious content and a spam username, related to the content, then the post is most likely spam. – double-beep Oct 19 at 10:12
  • I barely consider an answer that explains how somebody implemented something in a site as spam. So, no, suspicious content doesn't automatically mean spam. A spam flag used for a post that isn't spam is most probably declined. In fact, a post that plagiarized another post (or it's a carbon-copy of another post created from somebody else) isn't spam. – kiamlaluno Oct 19 at 10:17
  • 1
    @kiamlaluno plagiarism + spam link = SPAM. Suspicious content + spammy username = most probably spam. – double-beep Oct 19 at 10:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .