I think this is partially caused by the implicit gamification to be the first person to feedback (as evidenced by the SD message saying X gave Q feedback). Maybe for those messages we just say that the feedback was received, rather than who gave the feedback (e.g. just say "Q feedback received" or the expanded "Q feedback received on [link to post]"). If someone wants to know who gave what feedback, that can be obtained from AIM or MS.
There was a counter argument, which brought up the quite valid point that the gamification can be good, in that it encourages people to participate. There's a desire to have some sort of metric to see if the change has any effect, and to establish targets for what this change should achieve. There's also concern that we might be chasing changes for something that's not actually an issue.
@WELZ It means that your account has been disabled - therefore you can no longer see who provided the feedback. Click Here to file a ticket, submit your username and password, and we will re enable your account soon.
About this new system, it can help to see who it was that gave the feedback (especially if it's say a mod, or an experienced user on that site, you can usually assume that they will have more knowledge and be better suited to provide a proper feedback etc.)
@WELZ That information is available through MS or AIM (and can be made available from any other userscript that gets that information from the MS API).
I think this is partially caused by the implicit gamification to be the first person to feedback (as evidenced by the SD message saying X gave Q feedback). Maybe for those messages we just say that the feedback was received, rather than who gave the feedback (e.g. just say "Q feedback received" or the expanded "Q feedback received on [link to post]"). If someone wants to know who gave what feedback, that can be obtained from AIM or MS.
@TetsuyaYamamoto That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching website in body and Pattern-matching website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
SD is now not reporting which user provided the first feedback of each type. Some context (and further discussion), some additional concerns: here through here, notably including this. You can still get user⬌feedback info on MS or from AIM.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body (393): Phendora Garcinia France by akdnaad on apple.SE
@SmokeDetector Don't forget that when you select "Rude" in FIRE that MS doesn't automatically submit a R/A flag on the post. When I went to SO to manually flag it, the score was '0' although it already had a tpu feedback.
I forget why this was never implemented though - is this an API limitation?
@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially problematic ns configuration in body, Potentially problematic ns configuration in answer, Potentially bad keyword in body, and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@K.Dᴀᴠɪs There were a variety of issues. At this point those are sufficiently resolved. We were waiting on me to rewrite that section of the FIRE code to do it through the now available MS API route instead of the SE API route, which was the way I originally wrote it. I've done so. I need to move the code into a release.
If it doesn't happen in the near future, feel free to bug me about getting it done.
Oh nice, that's certainly something to look forward to. I know many people here cast spam flags on R/A - but those posts get thrown into the review queue if they are nuked as spam.
People in those queues shouldn't have to look at R/A content just because we nuked a post as spam
Which also brings up the bigger issue with autoflags. But we can take this one step at a time
(And by review queue - I am talking specifically about audits)
@K.Dᴀᴠɪs I agree. The frustration of having to open the post to flag each one of those was the main reason I first wrote it using the SE API.
However, IIRC, all of the red-flags have to be R/A in order to prevent it from being an audit, which means we also need to deal with autoflags, which could be handled partially by using R/A flags when the detection reasons contain at least one of the specifically offensive detections.
@K.Dᴀᴠɪs IIRC, I was a surprised the first time I read it had to be all flags as R/A, not a majority, or even just 1. IMO, unless they are hurting for audit material, then even a single R/A flag should disqualify the post from being an audit. If that's feasible would depend on the number of posts they have available to be audits compared to the number they need. Given how much spam there is, I would have assumed that they have enough potential audit material (which can be used more than once).
@TetsuyaYamamoto That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially problematic ns configuration in body and Potentially problematic ns configuration in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Shree That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching website in body and Pattern-matching website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen Would you consider adding a confirmation dialog in FIRE if a user clicks spam when one of the reasons for the post being caught was actually R/A?
@TetsuyaYamamoto That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially problematic ns configuration in body and Potentially problematic ns configuration in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@DavidPostill Given that you reported this post, I assume that there was information which wasn't obvious from the post that made it clearer that it was spam. Is that correct? I ask, because the post was previously reported. For that report, the majority of people gave FP feedback. Presumably, they were evaluating the post as just a really bad question, rather than definitely spam.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted username, blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, +2 more (681): Prime Skin Canada by omhusken on askubuntu.com
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body (295): Phendora Garcinia Fr by asasamzad on apple.SE
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, pattern-matching website in body, +3 more (492): Nutra keto 24 diet by radiantrevivecream on meta.SE
@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching website in answer and Pattern-matching website in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, link at end of body, pattern-matching product name in body, pattern-matching product name in title, +4 more (596): What is review on PureFit keto? by fiona harrise on superuser.com
@TetsuyaYamamoto That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
Recovered from KeyError: "Construct a DFA $M$ with $\\Sigma = \\{a\\}$ and max. 11 states so that $a^{23}\\not\\in L(M)$ but $\\{a^i|i\\geq 24\\}\\subset L(M)$. \n\nI don't see how it is possible? Because it's a DFA and the alphabet only ..."
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Pattern-matching product name in body, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title (200): Vital Keto Avis by asasamzas on apple.SE
