Very recently, a "question" containing profanity and an attack on all users of Stack Overflow was posted. The question was deleted (removed?) within 2 minutes of its posting. However, this did not immediately remove it from the listing of newest questions I viewed by clicking on the "Questions" button on the website.  Is there some kind of known delay in removing such a "question" from that listing? Or is this a bug? I imagine no one wants to have to view such a thing even briefly -- is there a technical challenge in immediately removing it from the list?  (FYI, the offensive material was visible in the title and display text in the list -- not only if you clicked on the question).
105021
Well, I already searched meta as well as cleared my browser cache.  I realize this may be a SO cache problem, but it still seems kind of strange to me.    The deleted question is (assuming it still exists).  Shouldn't deleted questions only be visible to 10k users?  I'm only at 2k.
103830
So I had  closed within eight minutes of asking.  Is this a little fast? Not only do I object to the reason it was closed (not a real question, come on I'm asking for decent books!), but it was closed insanely fast. Should there be a grace period for questions (diamond mods exempt if so) before they can be voted on to be closed?
98079
. The first case is generally fine: deleting an unanswered question rarely causes collateral damage. It can happen that someone was in the process of writing an answer, but if they feel that their answer-to-be is valuable enough, they can re-ask the question and answer it themselves. Deleting an answered question is more problematic. Common cases include:   The answer says “it was a typo” or “you misread the directions” or something similar which won't ever help anyone else. In this case, deleting the thread is the right thing. The asker is new to Stack Exchange and thinks that solved questions should be deleted. We shouldn't let that happen. The asker wants to hide their tracks: they don't want their professor/boss/… to find out that they got help from Stack Exchange, and they delete their question as soon as they get an answer.   Deletion of an answered question by the asker happens with very little opportunity for review.   The answerer won't notice anything unless they bookmarked the question and check back on it later, or they go and check the unemphasized section of their profile that lists their recently deleted posts. Users with the “moderator tools” privilege can check  but that list  (). Even if they were included, they'd be lost in the noise. Moderators have access to a . It's yet another tool for mods to check and contains a lot of things that don't need review (unanswered questions, answers that turned out to be wrong or duplicates), so I'd like something better.   I'd like to have better oversight on answers indirectly deleted by the asker: prevent or at least flag the bad cases, without requiring too much busywork in the good cases.  I propose to raise an automatic flag when a user deletes their question after it has been answered. This seems fine to me as a moderator on a small site, but I have no idea whether that means 1 or 100 extra flags per day on SO.  An alternative solution would be to remove the ability to single-handedly delete answered questions altogether. The right solution depends on how many self-deleted answered questions fall into each category, which I don't have statistics for.
13514
How should we treat questions that are, or have seeds of, evil or malicious purposes and actions, such as writing spambots and malware?    Should they be answered like regular "everybody keeps their pants on" questions? Or should there be some other type of response to this bad behaviour lot?
43976
&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**   &gt; [Possible to remove the link to duplicate question?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/50336/possible-to-remove-the-link-to-duplicate-question)    &lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;  Some  have this text at the top of the Markdown. I read a bit on the history, and Shog announced this behavior stopped with changes to the system in :  [R]ather than editing in the banner, it's generated as-needed and displayed separately above the question  I'm not able to find much recent information about this, so I'm just wondering what happens if I remove the banner. Does it make a &quot;real&quot; duplicate banner appear? Will it still be closed as a duplicate? Should I remove it or is there some benefit to keeping it there?
83734
Due to its massive (and growing) size, there are a lot of low-quality questions and answers appearing on Stack Overflow.  I'm concerned that an influx of low-quality questions and answers create a lot of work for our users and moderators and can potentially damage our expert Q&amp;A ecosystem.  Is there some way we can prevent these low-quality questions and answers from appearing on the site?   So:    What current processes are used to block these low-quality questions and answers? If the current processes are inadequate, how can they be improved?
21924
Of course spam posts should be flagged, and if they come up in review, rejected.  Over on Mi Yodeya during the past 24 hours I’ve helped delete and reject four spam posts through the review queue, and I can only imagine that others were posted over the course of the night. To clarify, I’m referring to edits and answers that were about 99.274% words that I don’t think any decent person would use in everyday discussions, even if someone got them really angry.   Thing is, if the only thing we can do as a community is delete his posts/reject his edits, and as moderators to ban his account, can’t he just create a new account? Further, some of these posts . Maybe the mods can ban his IP address? I’m not one, so I have no idea what kind of power they wield in that respect. But he can always just get a new computer.   I don’t have the numbers to see what this is like on other sites, but I know this doesn’t happen often on Mi Yodeya. I wonder, then, whether this is the optimal solution, or whether an automatic spam filter be put into place - say, a new review queue that automatically deletes posts or rejects edits that can then be voted on whether to be reposted if it’s a false alarm. Perhaps it can be automatically triggered by certain keywords (like ****, %$#^, or @$+^).   Now, all of these posts that I voted to delete/reject came up in Suggested Edits and First Posts. Maybe such edits would show up in Low Quality in general, and that just wasn’t the case here because of precedence rules. I don’t know. But perhaps the above would be a better solution, if this is even as big of a problem as I’m making it out to be.
73583
I'd like to delete a question of mine that was downvoted and has close votes, so I flagged it and asked for a mod to delete it but they didn't.  Why can it not be deleted?    I can understand that users shouldn't be able to delete questions and answers that may be useful to others but in this case the community has decided it has no value.  Also, following question edits, the answer with upvotes no longer answers it.
119100
Not long ago I noticed a blessed change that is obfuscating question title and body when it's deleted after getting valid spam flags.  Question title becomes:     This question was marked as spam or offensive and is therefore not shown   And body:     This question was marked as spam or offensive and is therefore not shown - you can see the revision history for details.   Great, however I saw now that the page title itself still showing the nasty spam:        Can my innocent soul be saved from seeing such horrible things, please?
110119
I was wondering why I couldn't delete my own question. Well actually, I have accepted the question itself to be wrong and even I feel that I have accepted a wrong answer, but when I try to delete my question, I get a message saying that,"This question can't be deleted, flag it for moderator attention". Why is this happening and how can I solve this?
43237
appears to have been question banned because of two unpopular Meta suggestions. (He says so in )  Look at the two contributions that appear to have gotten him banned. Like those of many others, they may not be of perfect quality, but they are not actively harmful to the site, either. As it stands, you can get question blocked on Meta simply for asking questions that aren't popular with the Meta crowd.  Why does the team insist on keeping the question ban active on Meta?  Why can't real problem users be dealt with through manual moderator action? Don't tell me it's a problem of scale; as far as I can see, actually toxic users are very rare on Meta.  People will frequently complain that Meta actively discourages the expression of unpopular viewpoints and suggestions. With the threat of question bans in place, I find those complaints difficult to refute. I hate that.
58982
TL;DR: I've gotten a previous account/IP address blocked from asking questions. It is pretty much the only thing I plan on using Stack Overflow for until I'm more experienced. I don't want to be a d*ck and consistently break any rules I might be breaking, but I don't understand what I'm doing wrong.    I recently had my account blocked from using the site's most basic features, essentially removing its usefulness to me on that account. I don't want to continue breaking any rules that have gotten me banned, because I don't want to offend a community of (mostly) people who are here to help others.  Why have almost all the questions I've created received a negative voting score?  I'd also like to know if people are banned solely because of downvotes, and if not, what have I done to deserve a ban?  The posts aren't only on this account; they are also on  and .  To clarify, I have already read the FAQ and how-to-ask.html. I did this before asking any questions on my first account, and I am already complying with these.
15249
I just asked a question on Stack Overflow. Often I notice my questions coming through on the front-page, but this one isn't there, even after I gave it some time. Why is this?
109034
I just ran across  and immediately thought to myself "yes, that should be deleted." But before I recommended deletion, I took a quick look at the question.  What the hell? A red background? The question is deleted? Must be a review audit... But then I still get a popup when I click the Recommend Deletion button... Ok, now I'm confused...  Taking a look at the , none of the answers under it are actually deleted.  Is this something to do with the question having been posted clear back in 2008? I mean, it wasn't deleted until 2011 (but automatically), so I wouldn't suspect that to be the problem. Is something else going on here? Should we clearly be blaming Sam for this?  If this isn't a bug, I'd say that LQP review certainly shouldn't be picking answers from closed and deleted questions. It's not like anyone can actually see those (and it should be deleted anyways).
74957
This is sort of a follow-up to a feature request that resulted in obscuring spam / offensive content from 10K-visible answers:   Suggest the same to be done for questions. As of now, spam questions (, ) preserve their titles and content. Suggest to revise the titles to something like     This question was marked as spam or offensive and is therefore not shown   And the text to something like:     This question was marked as spam or offensive and is therefore not shown - you can see the revision history for details".   Where "the revision history" links to the question revision history.    For those interested, here is a link to screen shots of how spam shines through my flagging summary page and is displayed to me when I click the link to one of deleted questions: .  For the sake of precision, flagger having less than 10K rep would see only upper screen shot - the one that lists question titles ("Call giRℒs blah blah &lt;phone number&gt;") - in their  page.
62601
I've occasionally noticed an OP who will edit their own question and destroy it completely, always leaving some kind of graffiti-like scrawl in its place.  This seems to happen on low-quality questions by low-rep users, and the moment of self destruction tends to occur after the question is closed or otherwise devolves into a communication breakdown between the poster and the community.  Here are some examples:        It seems like the poster usually does this in anger (1st and 3rd example), or else is just confused about how to delete their question (2nd example).  My question is about how this should be handled. In the past I wasn't sure, so I always flagged for mod attention. However I notice the solution on all of these was to just do a rollback (I did this myself on the 2nd example after nothing happened). Is this a good enough approach, or should a flag be used?  What about with particularly obnoxious users like in the third example, where the guy came back to do it again?
85777
I noticed  was on the Programmers.SE for a day or so without any answers.  So, I answered it.  Not long after that, it was migrated to SO.  I was surprised to find that it was not located on the first several pages after being migrated.  It seems that it's .  A large reason for putting new questions at the top of the list is so that enthusiastic answerers can jump at the ones that interest them right out of the gate.  However, a question that's migrated is nearly hidden from these most eager answerers, because the question jumps immediately to a sad page that is normally full of questions that people have either answered or deliberately passed over.  Should newly-migrated questions get a chance at being displayed prominently along with their newly-posted counterparts?  EDIT: To be clear, I am not asking what the current behavior is (which has already been asked and answered in another question). I am asking if the current behavior best serves the SO community.