@SmokeDetector This is an example of a post that has a link following arrow in the body, but where the current regex for that detection does not find it, due to the length restriction. It does find it the title.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, +2 more: Rapid Tone Diet by jodybrowns on drupal.SE
@EriktheOutgolfer what @Magisch said. They are waiting on an announcement to not confuse people too much. I'm a CM, so I'll be up to my ears in diamonds soon enough.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, +5 more: Rapid Tone Diet by zghewxw on superuser.com
@Glorfindel 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.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, +2 more: Rapid Tone Diet by gigimoraino on drupal.SE
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title, repeated url at end of long post: [Keto Renew][1] Listed below are a few by akilajeans on interpersonal.SE (@AJ)
@EriktheOutgolfer That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad ns for domain in body, Potentially bad ns for domain in answer, Pattern-matching website in answer, and Pattern-matching website in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
> Potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title, potentially bad keyword in username ---------- Title - Position 1-5: keto Body - Position 1-5: keto Username - Position 1-5: keto
@iBug That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad ns for domain in body, Potentially bad ns for domain in answer, Pattern-matching website in answer, and Pattern-matching website in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@iBug Blacklisted testostack\.com
CI on bcdfc61 succeeded. Message contains 'autopull', pulling...
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body: Is Always It A Definite Scam by Thojsorwsw on askubuntu.com
I made a dry response to SD which now shows on MS. When trying to remove it, I am greeted by an error message that the page I am trying to view is for higher privilege only. What am I missing (aside from higher privileges) and how can I remove my comment from MS?
@Magisch Yeah, too close to people crying sockpuppetry
If you change the words a little bit, though, you get something that is almost equivalent and might be acceptable - Cast ~3 autoflags, then another upon first TP feedback, at appropriate weights
That way it's not "flagged because someone said it should be", it's "the system thought this should be flagged and waited for confirmation on the kill shot"
If we really do have a system that can classify stuff that accurately, calls for humans involved pre-nuke are kinda silly. I understand it makes people queasy, but I have three years of data vs. your queasiness.
We have a ridiculously small amount of FP's and in those cases the posts are all borderline or low quality anyways. And this room is filled to the brim with site mods. No form of flag related injustice is going to survive an hour in here.
I don't understand how mods feel out of control when they have better visibility and transparency then any 6 random users not feeling it today would ever give them
And make the post mostly about what we've done to address the concerns, steps we've taken to reduce potential for abuse, explaining in depth the accountability systems in place, describing coverage etc
@Undo I assumed good faith, so went for NAA first only to visit that link with the perception content could be edited in ... I left the sauce where it was ...
We've tried that twice. Got two whirlwinds, a bunch of drama, a bunch of people who don't understand it and probably won't understand it, and individual sites opting out of things based on numbers people blindly copied from metasmoke.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, +5 more: Rapid Tone Diet by zghpqak on superuser.com
I think that, if we do one, it should be as short as possible. Link to other places, but leave very little procedural detail to argue over.
One pretty graph illustrating what 99.99% looks like, one sentence about how we're able to catch issues fast, etc. Not paragraphs, too easy to nitpick paragraphs.
@EriktheOutgolfer metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/128481 It was not removed. And while the error shouldn't scare me, I am still curious why I may not remove my own comment :/
What is the end goal of the meta post? (I'm working on it right now and will post here) I need to know what our call to action/desired out come is though.
suggestions, in order from best to worst: 1) unanimous agreement of the mod team 2) unanimous agreement of the mod team + general agreement from the community
first draft - It's short. It keeps the request for what we want small. It provides an update since March. I'd like to throw in another bullet or two about updates (maybe something regarding X posts caught, Y flags cast, Average TTD is Z seconds). Comments?
Instead of "2 reviews", how would you explain that it works. The system issues 5 flags...then what happens? What do the reviewers do? What happens if they say it's a false positive?
The most important issues will be raised in the first day or two, and anyone who doesn't show up until day 10 can't really object. It's their fault they don't check often enough
And if they don't check often enough, the change shouldn't bother them
Now, in the rare case that some regular has taken a break and has objection, they can start a discussion later
> For those who don't watch spam much, there's sort of a "herd immunity" aspect: spam groups tend to jump from site to site once they've established a plan of attack, looking for cheap opportunities to re-use their approach while evading attempts to mitigate. Source
