1

I know this post is now several months old, but I just realized today that I have a declined spam flag on an obvious spam post. I flagged this post as spam, but it got declined with the following reason:

declined - Using standard flags helps us prioritize problems and resolve them faster. Please familiarize yourself with the list of standard flag.

I did use a standard flag (spam), and the post very clearly has nothing to do with sound design, but is instead just incoherent rambling about government conspiracies and patents, and trying to get people to email him. (in other words, spam)

Why was this flag declined?

| |
1

This was rejected because the post was not SPAM. It wasn't trying to promote any product or service. It was a horrible question and blatantly off topic, but nothing about it was promotional. The correct flagging for it would have been either should be closed or very low quality, probably more towards the former. Validating a spam flag will take additional actions that aren't desirable to take on non-spam posts (such as feeding the anti-spam filters).

| |
  • 2
    Did you miss the promotion part? It's a completely off-topic question and contains some religious promotion, plus the line If you are interested in knowing more please contact me at constantbarrage@gmail.com. – Mithical Jan 10 '18 at 23:45
  • 1
    @mithrandir one contact email isn't that abnormal and doesn't serve much purpose for spamming. The op seemed to believe it was on topic because of having something to do with sound waves. They may have been horribly misguided but it still seems like a legitimate attempt at posting, even if they badly misunderstood the point of the site. – AJ Henderson♦ Jan 11 '18 at 0:58
  • Okay, I guess I can see your point. (And sorry if that previous comment sounded rude.) – Mithical Jan 11 '18 at 0:58
  • @mithrandir it's also worth pointing out the op edited after deletion. The original post wasn't nearly as long and lacked any religious spam. It was just trying to understand how the microwaves beamed in to people's heads. The edited version is certainly even more off topic than it originally was. – AJ Henderson♦ Jan 11 '18 at 1:01
  • And no, you didn't seem rude at all. I'm not above making errors and don't mind people questioning choices at all. In this case I do stand behind my original choice though even after taking a second look. – AJ Henderson♦ Jan 11 '18 at 1:03
  • I only saw the first revision, so it seemed more spammy to me. That does make a difference. – James Jan 11 '18 at 1:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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