Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 16
    Did you just change your username to answer this question? Commented Nov 27, 2017 at 19:32
  • 4
    @Randal'Thor meta.stackexchange.com/a/26518/335772
    – Nissa
    Commented Nov 27, 2017 at 19:36
  • @Randal'Thor the change was made before this answer, as far as I can tell. Commented Nov 28, 2017 at 15:58
  • 10
    We could, but it'd quickly end up being a cat & mouse game. I've done this before - they figure out how to work around it pretty quickly, and now you have patterns that are harder to match. Spammers have been dealing with pattern-recognition engines for a couple of decades now - they've gotten pretty good at working around the most basic checks, and throwing enough noise in that even the more serious ones end up giving you false positives. Still worth doing, but only as part of other, more effective steps to make this unprofitable.
    – Shog9
    Commented Dec 1, 2017 at 23:06
  • 1
    There are usernames out there that would defy most peoples' bets. Note this username and activity. stackoverflow.com/questions/24367710/…. I was convinced that it was spam from the username alone, but indeed there's a real post. Commented Dec 6, 2017 at 19:52
  • Spammers are playing a money game. They will seek paths of greatest profitability. SE sites get a lot of visitors, so the caliber of resistance that SE must apply in self-defense will also need to be high to make the pursuit seem futile, unsavory, unprofitable. Commented May 4, 2021 at 23:18