Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Meta

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Comments on How to handle correct answers that also include spam?

Parent

How to handle correct answers that also include spam?

+7
−1

A recent answer on Software Development was correct, but was included spam / self promotion (unrelated to the question or the answer).

The answer was edited to remove the spam, but it was suggested to remove the entire answer (even if correct) to deter future answerers from spamming in their answers.

AFAIK these are very rare cases, as virtually all spam comes in AI generated answers that hardly address the question.

How should we proceed in these cases? I see the following options:

  • completely remove the answer (deny rewarding to the answerer)
  • remove only the spam part

combined with

  • warn the user
  • temporarily ban the user
History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+4
−0

In my opinion, there is a single appropriate response to any incident of obvious, commercial, off-topic spam: an immediate, unconditional, one-strike-and-you're-out, permanent ban of the user and the deletion of all their content.

There is no logic in trying to change the user's behaviour with warnings, temporary suspensions or words of advice, because they are not actually a user to begin with. They are either an AI bot or a human operator, paid by a commercial entity to spread as many spam links as possible, on whatever sites they can gain access to. They are not posting spam by accident or because they are unfamiliar with the rules; they are intentionally ignoring the rules in order to carry out their single, unchanging purpose of posting spam links.

If you warn spammers, they will ignore the warning. If you temporarily ban them, they will most likely move on to another site, but if they do return, it will just be to post more spam. In no case will they start participating in good faith, because that was never what they were here to do. Any non-spam "content" they appear to have posted should be assumed to be AI-generated or plagiarised, and posted for the sole purpose of making them seem like a genuine user for long enough to get a chance to post a spam link.

There may be borderline cases where a actual contributor posts a link to their own tool or service because they genuinely believe it will help answer someone's question. In this case, a warning about self-promotion and a request that they properly disclose their affiliation would be appropriate. But if they are posting links to porn or gambling sites, there is a 0% chance that they are a bona fide user, and they should be deleted immediately.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Not an appropriate action for all forms of spamming (2 comments)
Not an appropriate action for all forms of spamming

For the most part, along with the reasoning behind it, I agree with your answer, thus I've upvoted it. However, your premise laid out in the first paragraph, isn't universal to all spammers. It does apply in this particular case, but there are many instances of spam from otherwise good contributors.

Some of that spamming can be malicious, for example a user purposefully bending the rules to excessively promote a product, software library, etc. An appropriate action in this case would be to delete the spam (consider editing out, or simply blanket-deleting offending posts/comments), while suspending the user with a message from the handler.

Then there's the next step down, a person acting in good faith, being aware that they are promoting something, but failing to walk that line adequately, mistakenly going too far.

Last, but not least, spamming, even plagiarism, are sometimes the result of the author misunderstanding how to properly cite and disclose affiliation.

That's more or less what I was aiming for in the final paragraph. Maybe it deserves more prominence though.