19
$\begingroup$

The notion of what constitutes spam in Math.SE posts has been discussed before, with links to appropriate Meta.SE posts covering the same ground.

With that in mind, please (if reputation permits) view my failed review audit.

This was an answer recently offered to a year-old Question, Math and geometry software to create instructional videos. Although initially lacking an acknowledgement of authorship of the software, this was fixed pretty promptly (in five minutes) when that shortcoming was pointed out.

The software and Answer do address the concerns raised in the Question, particularly because the software is offered free of charge and with an open source license that accommodates any intended commercial use of the software. [There seems to be some misinformation in the Question about software authors being able to control the uses of program output, but that's not the fault of this software author.]

I can't be sure of when the post was marked as spam, but it makes a terrible example for a review audit (whose boilerplate text understandably but annoyingly conflates the issues of spam and offensive material). I would like to "flag" for removal of the spam flagging!

The Answer was self-deleted, probably as a result of the down votes it got. I know there's little I can hope to do about that, but I do want to call on the Community to be more considerate in evaluating an accusation of spam than was the case here.

Update: The Answer at issue has now been undeleted and classification as spam removed. At least it will no longer serve as a Review Audit, and it may serve as an example of how open source software may be offered to the Community.

$\endgroup$
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I agree in spirit that this particular answer is ok, especially given the (slightly belated...) disclosure of the affiliation. That being said, the poster made three answers within a few hours on 4/16, all of which were advertising this software - and none of which disclosed the affiliation until someone brought it up. As such, I don't think that calling this spam is too far out of line. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Apr 26 '16 at 1:07
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ This is definitely a borderline case: the post itself may not be "clearly spam" or "clearly not spam." But it does feel like answering several old questions promoting software one has created, in a short timeframe, pushes the cluster of answers toward the spam territory. It is a pretty unfortunate flag for a review audit. $\endgroup$ – pjs36 Apr 26 '16 at 2:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The answer is not very distinguishable from spam. Unfortunately, the question itself essentially asks for posts like that, so the answer is in the spirit of the question. The real issue is the question, I think. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Apr 29 '16 at 14:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .