Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

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.

20
  • 10
    @animuson Doesn't "It contains only gibberish, such as "fsdguejgkfdlk". Use the 'offensive' flag for these cases, or flag 'for moderator attention' with a custom explanation if it requires more detail." contradict "As a rule of thumb, if you can't justify something as being hate speech, or abuse, you shouldn't mark the post as offensive. Instead, you should down-vote the post."? That doesn't seem like abuse, at least not abuse in the meaning normally associated with "offensive". (Before your edit, this answer said to flag gibberish as NAA.)
    – hvd
    Commented Feb 25, 2015 at 15:06
  • 17
    @hvd We've established in past discussions that abuse of the system qualifies under the offensive flag. Posting gibberish that doesn't mean anything is definitely abusing the system.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Commented Feb 25, 2015 at 15:07
  • 2
    @animuson That seems fair enough, but then the part of this answer that covers "Offensive" could use some cleaning up as well. I'll see if I can think of clearer wording (no promises) to edit, or if you can think of some, please do edit.
    – hvd
    Commented Feb 25, 2015 at 15:08
  • 1
    @hvd Here's the post I was referring to. It's since been edited to also include the VLQ flag (though the NAA flag will also do the same thing now). There's no harm in letting it run through the review queues instead, but nuking it as offensive will throw them into the system filters and blocks to prevent them posting more junk in the future.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Commented Feb 25, 2015 at 15:14
  • @animuson Thanks. I've edited to hopefully make it clear that "offensive" is supposed to cover both meanings of "abuse".
    – hvd
    Commented Feb 25, 2015 at 15:17
  • 8
    Be careful on "gibberish posts" Shog9 instructions is that on user with reasonable posts elsewhere "flag will be declined because it'd mess them up for what was probably an innocent mistake."
    – Petter Friberg
    Commented Apr 8, 2016 at 22:23
  • @Undo: I fail to see your point of the disclaimer you added on the top. The linked post doesn’t invalidate the advice given in this answer the slightest. Also permissive […] guidance on use of flags can be misunderstood in that more posts are permitted, i.e., there are stricter criteria as what can be red-flagged.
    – Wrzlprmft
    Commented Sep 27, 2017 at 14:24
  • Mostly, Stack Overflow has jettisoned the difference between spam and R/A flags @Wrzl. For example, this answer prohibits spam flags on gibberish, while SO doesn't care. The wording clarity comment is valid, but I can't come up with better wording right now. Mostly hoping folks click the link.
    – Undo
    Commented Sep 27, 2017 at 14:33
  • @Undo: I understand this, but that doesn’t mean that anybody following this advice will run into problems. Linking that post (at the very top) gives the impression that the situation is more complicated than it is, which is unnecessarily confusing.
    – Wrzlprmft
    Commented Sep 27, 2017 at 14:35
  • @Wrzl Issue comes when moderators see this and start declining stuff. It's difficult to coordinate a 20+ person team, and if a blurb at the top of a commonly linked answer helps prevent some mSO drama I'd say it's worth it.
    – Undo
    Commented Sep 27, 2017 at 14:38
  • 1
    @Undo: Okay, but that’s nothing we need to confuse the average user reading this FAQ with. I slapped a for moderators before that notice, so everybody else knows that they can skip it.
    – Wrzlprmft
    Commented Sep 29, 2017 at 10:38
  • 1
    @ɪʙᴜɢ This edit you have done is being discussed at Meta Stack Overflow. It would be helpful to have your input about it over there (in particular, about what you have based it on).
    – duplode
    Commented Apr 8, 2018 at 14:05
  • @animuson The "lacks disclosure" introduced in revision 53 has now become a reason to state that a spam flag is valid (not matter what the content of the post is). Hence a post with a link to your github page or even this answer a spam flag according to this guidance is valid. Is this the intention? I had the impression that we should edit in attribution if post is useful, and if it's just a link to a related blog post (hence blog answering question) flag as NAA.
    – Petter Friberg
    Commented May 29, 2018 at 6:46
  • I'm also curious why "However, the disclosure must happen in the post itself; the author’s username or profile do not count.", specially since this is the reason the spam flags are applied (hence people understand the OP is affiliated since OP's name clearly state it's, but since not indicated in answer, it breaks the rules of this post.)
    – Petter Friberg
    Commented May 29, 2018 at 6:52
  • Re. edit: Isn't a question about the origin of a rude word distinct from questions about code that uses offensive and vulgar words for filtering out profanities. These two types of questions would never appear on the same site.
    – Mari-Lou A Слава Україні
    Commented Sep 21, 2021 at 6:35