Timeline for Flagging spam user
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 1, 2017 at 13:24 | vote | accept | LSpice | ||
| Nov 28, 2017 at 7:05 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | Related on Meta.SE: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/303746/… | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 6:59 | answer | added | Nate Eldredge | timeline score: 18 | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 21:55 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Responding to comment on deleted account page
|
| Nov 27, 2017 at 21:51 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | The link now leads to a 404. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 17:28 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 27, 2017 at 15:39 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | This older posts seems - to some extent - related: Companies accounts allowed? | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 15:37 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
It seems that (users) or (user-accounts) - or both - might be a reasonable tags for this question; of course, if you disagree feel free to revert my edit
|
|
| Nov 27, 2017 at 13:39 | answer | added | Glorfindel | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 13:37 | answer | added | Todd TrimbleMod | timeline score: 15 | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 13:26 | comment | added | tripleee |
On Stack Overflow, the admin response was "nah, they're harmless as long as they don't post anything." The SEO effect should be minimal (the HTML has all the necessary nofollow etc tags) even though the admins here could IMHO reasonably take a different stance.
|
|
| Nov 27, 2017 at 13:16 | history | asked | LSpice | CC BY-SA 3.0 |