When does it label posts as being "reported and deleted"? Does this mean deleted by moderator/s or does this count user deletion too? Also, what does it mean by reported? As in reported for spam/ any flag?
Also when I see a NAA post I don't delve deep into whether it was spam or just NAA. I simply mark it as NAA and move on... Is this ok or should I check for spam there too?
@Yatin If you're asking about feedback to SD/MS, then you should definitely differentiate between TP and NAA. From SD/MS' point of view NAA==FP (mostly). NAA exists as feedback mostly to make those pesky humans happy that they are not marking it FP. If you're asking about actual flagging, that's up to you, but an NAA flag is likely to be marked as helpful on a spam post, but it isn't actually as helpful as marking spam as spam.
@Yatin If you're referring to "Deleted X minutes/hours after being reported" that could be any reason for deletion - SD doesn't have the privileges (and as far as I know, it's not in the API even for those who do) to tell the difference between them
it also only detects it within a certain time period after reporting, and can be thwarted by any number of things, including, but not limited to, the ongoing issues with Stack Exchange's websockets
@RyanM 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.
@metasmoke @Yatin heads-up on sneaky spammers like this one: a watch on the domain (reported as "Potentially bad keyword in body" matching on the domain) usually warrants a second look (generally checking the domain history), as it means the domain has appeared in suspicious content previously. In this case, about 20 "questions" linking that domain with keywords on the links like that, including a previous use of that username.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching product name in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad keyword in body (294): What is the LeptoFix Price? by leptofixvew on meta.SE
@RyanM 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.
@VictorVosMottor 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.
@VictorVosMottor 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.
@VictorVosMottor 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 answer, bad keyword in link text in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer, username similar to website in answer (231): effective teaching by Assignment Max on mathoverflow.net
@Yatin That's very much open to interpretation and will depend on what the mods on the site decide. It will vary both from site to site and from moderator to moderator. IMO, a spam flag on something which has undisclosed affiliation should never be declined, because that's something that is very explicitly called out in the flag dialog as one of the things for which that flag is for. However, a custom flag explaining the situation is usually much better, except in obvious cases.
There's a lot of nuance as to when it's intended for things without disclosure of affiliation to be spam. For example, if a question is explicitly about the thing the OP is affiliated with and they are linking to official documentation, then disclosure isn't required. OTOH, if they are just recommending their thing on questions which are not about their thing, then that may be spam even if affiliation is disclosed.
A lot of it comes down to what is interpreted as their intent based on what they have posted, all of the content of the posts, the quality of the content (e.g. are answers real, quality answers), the quantity of posts, and the percentage of posts which are about their thing out of all of their contributions are considered, or at least should be.
As to new users posting with undisclosed affiliation: IMO, they should be explicitly told about the affiliation requirement at the first occurrence and pointed at appropriate resources describing the policy and other spam policies. Prior to being a moderator, I would routinely post one of many canned comments with such information.
Assuming that the post was a real question or answer of reasonable quality, I would then give them time to edit, revisiting the post after some amount of time (a day or two). If they didn't edit disclosure in within a reasonable time, I would then custom flag or add disclosure for them, depending on the overall quality of the post.
If they continued to post without including disclosure after being given the information (and a reasonable time to see the notification and read), then I'd just go with flags, preferably at least one custom flag per post, unless obvious.
In general, my tipping point, without other information, is three posts with undisclosed affiliation prior to thinking that they are here primarily to promote their thing, but, again, that depends on the content and quality of what they are posting along with its relevance to the site/question on which they are posting (again, an interpretation of intent).
@VictorVosMottor 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.
@VictorVosMottor 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.
@VictorVosMottor 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.
