@iBug I'd prefer to reduce the traffic in the room. It's probably also good to delay actual reloading, if the user knows they are going to be making additional changes, as doing so reduces processing, potentially making it less likely that a command is missed. I'm unsure if the race conditions might apply wrt. potentially missing a command.
@iBug Yes, and no. That's why I suggested an additional command/command option. It's really not needed unless the user knows they are going to do more than one at a time.
@iBug Honestly, not sure. It should be long enough for someone to edit up a relatively trivial watch by opening FIRE to copying a URL, then closing FIRE, pasting the URL into the input, then editing it. However, given chat rate limiting tops out at 20s/message, I'd say 30s. That assumes the user is doing a string of them.
Post 1: That does not look like a valid post URL. Post 2: That does not look like a valid post URL. Post 3: Already recently reported [ [MS](https://m.erwaysoftware.com/posts/uid/anime/48954) ]
Post 1: That does not look like a valid post URL. Post 2: Already recently reported [ [MS](https://m.erwaysoftware.com/posts/uid/anime/48954) ] Post 3: That does not look like a valid post URL.
I'd consider the random sequence issue secondary to stating the actual number of reports. Frankly, if it said the correct number of reports, we wouldn't have cared about the order 99% of the time.
Post 1: That does not look like a valid post URL. Post 2: That does not look like a valid post URL. Post 3: That does not look like a valid post URL. Post 4: That does not look like a valid post URL. Post 5: That does not look like a valid post URL.
Post 1: That does not look like a valid post URL. Post 3: A duplicate URL was provided Post 4: A duplicate URL was provided Post 5: A duplicate URL was provided
Post 1: Already recently reported [ [MS](https://m.erwaysoftware.com/posts/uid/anime/48954) ] Post 2: That does not look like a valid post URL. Post 3: That does not look like a valid post URL.
There are a number of reasons where a post would be rejected, including invalid URL, duplicate URL, deleted post, recently reported, scanned as not spam, and so on
@gparyani I don't think it's doable for first-time contributors.
Fixing the numbers would require going through all reported posts and putting the numbers in, which isn't any easy because a post is reported to chat as soon as it's considered spam. This would require a refactory at a scale.
Well, at some point, prior to beginning to process actual URLs to test for spam (all will be reported, at least as manual reports, unless considered invalid by SE (e.g. deleted)), you know how many URLs you are actually going to test. Use that number in the actual report, which will cover 90% of cases. It doesn't cover cases where the post is already deleted. The reply to the !!/report doesn't need to match the "2 of 3" number in the SD reports.
@iBug True. If to implement depends on how difficult it is to do so. I haven't looked at the code, but it conceptually doesn't seem to hard to use the number of items once it's been pruned of the obvious things (e.g. duplicates, non-URLs, etc.). In other words, there's a point at which the items have passed internal checks and are then dispatched to be fetched and checked for spam. If it's not easy, then that's fine.
If it is easy, each occurrence saves multiple people from trying to track down what went wrong. Alternately, we could always post a report here in CHQ for batch reports that have problems, as here is people's primary source of data.
@Makyen Difficulty may not be any high, because invalid and duplicate URLs are filtered beforehand. The rest kinds of errors need performing actual checks.
@iBug I think just using the number from the after pre-filtering would solve 80%–95% of the times that it might be an issue. If the code's structured the way I would expect, I don't think we should bother trying to use a number that takes anything past the pre-filtering into account.
@Makyen I guess they had a requirement to put n logos and did not yet have n actual customers ... I imagine they will remove us when they have a genuine customer case to replace it with
whoever came up with a silly requirement like that should be interrogated, of course
@tripleee I would expect so. That's often the reason that such things are done. If I was looking at it from the outside, I'd consider the fact that they did it as a negative when evaluating the service.
@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Blacklisted website in answer, Blacklisted website in body, Pattern-matching website in answer, and Pattern-matching website in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
there's a number of related domains around downloader.vip -- this domain in particular is behind domainsbyproxy and Cloudflare but all the others are hosted at Dreamhost and registered to fileorgin@gmail.com
[ 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 (789): Keto fit premium australia by testoultrasouth on meta.SE
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Korean character in title, url in title, mostly non-latin title, potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title (284): 트럼프카지노】dancesweb.com/trump/】 by jenny kim on academia.SE
> Potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title, potentially bad keyword in username ---------- Title - Position 1-13: dancesweb.com Body - Position 1-13: dancesweb.com Username - Position 1-13: dancesweb.com
@tripleee 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.
I fear a quick test wouldn't be a good indicator. That e parameter is probably 'dangerous' in combination with things like \W*, and we should rewrite some of our blacklist/watch entries which already simulate some kind of fuzzy match.
I mean, it'd be good to know if scanning a post will now take 20 seconds, but there are still things we can improve beyond just setting a fuzzy search parameter.
@ArtOfCode "My work on metasmoke usually involves responding to user bug reports and feature requests; I work on the full stack, including the data layer, backend controllers, and web UI design." - I'd replace that ; with a . personally
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url-only title, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in title, pattern-matching website in title, +1 more (495): supplementforuse.com/praltrix-es/ by mghusken on askubuntu.com
@iBug That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@iBug 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.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, pattern-matching product name in body, potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title (198): What Is Keto 10 Shark Tank? by user317987 on english.SE
> Potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title, potentially bad keyword in username ---------- Title - Position 1-4: keto Body - Position 1-4: keto Username - Position 1-4: keto
@iBug 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.
@Shree That pattern looks like it's already caught by Blacklisted website in body and Blacklisted website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url in title, bad keyword in body, pattern-matching product name in body, pattern-matching website in body, pattern-matching website in title (490): protecvitalplus.tumblr.com/ by user18585 on ai.SE (@Mithrandir)
@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, pattern-matching product name in body, +1 more (590): Praltrix for male enhancement by jarlinkerse on askubuntu.com
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad keyword in body, +2 more (399): Expressions of Caution Bella Radiance by essielreen on meta.SE
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url in title, bad keyword in body, bad pattern in url body, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching product name in body, +2 more (585): vimeo.com/292256565 by DennisForrester on gaming.SE
