@Makyen 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.
@Machavity 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 @Glorfindel You sure about this being just NAA, I'd call it rude. The first part appears to be calling the question OP an offensive name.
I think the answerer's understanding of English might be inadequate (similarly to using 'fucking' as a synonym for very), so I flagged as NAA. I'll change my feedback though.
And I didn't realize it'd trigger an FP on autoflagged post event ...
@Glorfindel Honestly, that it will trigger a FP on autoflagged event really shouldn't be a consideration (although, I understand thinking about it). If you felt it wasn't TP, or might not be TP, then it's good to have people notified. If it's something that 's marginal, then at least the autoflaggers have the opportunity to evaluate it for themselves. That's important.
I tend to give the benefit of the doubt when it's just an exclamation, but if it's aimed at another user it needs to go, misunderstood or no. Using words you don't fully understand is generally a bad idea
@Makyen I thought about it only after the fact. This is probably a bad example, but there are cases where you want to give the author the benefit of the doubt (and flagging as NAA) but you don't want to mess up feedback statistics (which ultimately decide what gets autoflagged and what not) and feedback tpu-.
If, like with the userscripts, all actions are tied to each other, that's rather hard. I have to remind myself to open a different browser (or the SE app) to flag - providing feedback first is not an option since it gets overwritten.
@Machavity They can be. There's probably some context where they would not, but they can be provided as part of promoting something, or asking for work outside of SE. However, someone providing such a link isn't inherently spam.
I have not ever seen a question containing the word "keto" that was about Ubuntu. Is it possible to prevent Reputation 1 posters from posting a question containing "keto"?
I'd be tempted to reword it slightly - rather than saying "it's more effective if done by...", maybe put it as "there is a volunteer team doing this sort of thing..."
@rene I'd also suggest rewording a bit similar to what @ArtOfCode has mentioned. As it currently is, it feels a bit adversarial. I'd suggest keeping it mostly informative, as opposed to directly shooting down the user's suggestion. I'd recommend informing them that there's already a project that does almost what the OP is asking for: Any post (rep <= 30; score <= 1) containing "keto" is reported in CHQ.
If the post matches other detections, sufficient to reach user-defined autoflagging criteria, then it is automatically flagged with up to 4 flags.
Ask Ubuntu posts are reported in Raiders of the Lost Downboat, but must have some detection other than just contain "keto" to be reported there (e.g. contain a known-bad spam domain, known-bad spam product name, etc.).
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, potentially bad asn for hostname in body, +3 more (395): medicfitonline.store/valley-keto/ by Prelf198 on askubuntu.com
@Glorfindel I really love your auto edits, seeing your second edit in jasper-reports... I was what the heck are you doing in jasper-reports.. but yeah I found the git page!
@Glorfindel Many spammers use plagiarised content. At least the post on Graphic Design seemed plagiarised. On the other hand, it was around for half a year, so it’s a bit difficult to say who was first.
@Wrzlprmft I checked that post I edited for plagiarism first, but found none. But then I didn't knew about the network-wide reach of this user. They seem to have found a sweet spot where their content seems plausible, the link is not too suspicious and Smokey doesn't detect their posts.
Maybe it’s just somebody who was living too long in the unmoderated regions of the Internet and now somehow thinks that every post must contain a random link.
On one of the sites I moderate we had one user who randomly got very excited about something and then posted a few answers about it that were pretty much indistinguishable from spam.
@Wrzlprmft I strongly suspect there was some shenanigans involves we couldn't see. A user excitedly posting typically does either a pattern of the same site or random suggestions sprinkled in answers. They typically don't go making multiple SE profiles to post the same link
@Wrzlprmft You can get the date the record was created in metasmoke (i.e. when it was reported). There's a field in the database for when the post was actually created, but I've only ever seen that field contain null.
@double-beep Thanks fro mentioning it. I expect there will be a discussion between the mods. Separating out autoflags into spam and R/A has been requested on a number of occasions. So far, it has been declined. The primary reasons for declining has been that it's a considerable amount of work, making that choice really isn't all that clear-cut, and the benefit is low, given that the flags effects are almost identical.
The only real difference between spam and R/A flags is that R/A flagged posts won't become audits. However, even a single R/A flag will result in the post not being an audit. Given that we only raise at most 4 autoflags, humans are still able to toss on an R/A flag if appropriate.
@double-beep BTW: @Undo, you're probably going to see any discussion that comes from that, but given that it's directly related to a Meta post of yours, I figure directly informing you might be helpful.
@double-beep Our policy on that is "(1) insufficient reason for us to separate them; (2) mods are wrong when they care about the difference, (3) not worth it to fight them over it because this is one of those things people get super entrenched about for no good reason"
makes life waaaay easier to be able to say "yeah that's wrong but meh"
I have not ever seen a question containing the word "keto" that was about Ubuntu. Is it possible to prevent Reputation 1 posters from posting a question containing "keto"?
