in reply to consideration style for spam nodes

Also, don't put the word "spam" in a consideration if it isn't really spam. (In the eyes of somebody wanting to reap a node, many things appear to look like "spam", IME.)

- tye        

  • Comment on Re: consideration style for spam nodes (non-spam)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: consideration style for spam nodes (non-spam)
by LanX (Saint) on Oct 17, 2014 at 13:52 UTC
    Please, do you have examples demonstrating your point?

    There was much discussion if stupid spam (no links no message) is still spam.

    I'd say any automatically generated junk which should be blocked should be marked.

    If not "spam" then "junk", though I don't see the difference in blocking practice ...

    update

    Of course "dupe" or "duplicates" are not spam...

    But the only other category I can think of is manually generated stuff. (nonsense or off topic)

    Cheers Rolf

    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

[reply]
      Of course "dupe" or "duplicates" are not spam...

      Don't be duped into thinking that the abbreviation for "duplicate" is not "dup" but the whole word "dupe" (which already has another meaning). q-:

      Yes, I've come to realize that there really is a lot of stupid, pointless stuff that is being posted by spammers. But I recall considerations for single nodes posted by real users marked as "spam" (surely because the considerer was sick of hearing of the topic and so it felt like spam to them).

      Best to mark stupid, pointless stuff suspected of being posted by a spammer as "spam probe"?

      - tye        

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion