@SmokeDetector "I have small business" doesn't seem good enough to count as disclosing affiliation, the way it's currently worded. I'll drop them a line.
@Xnero Primarily because that's how it's been in the past, so I assumed that's what was desired.
What changed was to not give non-Core users primary access to the remaining flags under the conditions where doing so results in the individual users without the Core role having a greater chance of being selected for a flag than individual users with the Core role. Under those conditions, the remaining flags are shared equally between the qualifying Core users who have not already been allocated a flag and all qualifying non-Core users.
General request: If you've found undisclosed affiliation, please provide at least a hint as to how/where you were able to determine that the affiliation exists. For example, the notation could be something like "undisclosed affiliation; site linked in profile". While other people may be able to also find the indication of undisclosed affiliation, it helps quite a bit to not have to start from scratch when looking.
7
It also greatly helps to have that information if things change such that the indication you found no longer exists (e.g. user edit profile, user is deleted/destroyed, etc.).
In addition to having that information here and in comments on the post in MS, when custom flagging, it substantially increases the likelihood that a flag will be helpful and handled quickly if you include similar information in your custom flag.
Hello Charcoal-ers, I spend some time on Medical Sciences.SE and I've come across a user that has posted their own scholarly research as 2/2 of their answers on the site 12. The first of these posts is at best tangentially related to the question. The spam policy on this beta site is identical to the network's. Anyone have experience with a user over-self promoting academic papers?
