[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted website in body, link at beginning of body, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ip for hostname in body (237): Mouse sensitivity converter by hardy john on askubuntu.com
> Bad keyword in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer ---------- Bad keyword in answer - Position 36-43: /canon- Potentially bad keyword in answer - Position 12-28: my-hpdrivers.com Potentially bad ns for domain in answer - my-hpdrivers.com NS suspicious ns13.hawkhost.com.,ns14.hawkhost.com.
Nowadays I am seeing there are more then +10 spam posts every day , Someone is advertising it's website , someone is advertising it's projects , apps which are not even realated to ubuntu . To prevent this all I have thought of a solution.
There should be a mandatory format of question like (just...
@SurajRao Thanks, good catch! I figured it out myself once I saw the second one. Before, I was assuming that it was just some kind of CodePen-style sandbox link, because I didn't try to go to the page.
@Glorfindel Turns out this has a history. Might want to turn your FP into TP for having a known history on that domain, next hit puts it on the blacklist.
@metasmoke @cigien Nonsense posts are TP, like vandalism.
@Mast There's a question in the title, so it's not purely nonsense. Presumably, OP had nothing further to add, so they put a bunch of 0s in the body. A site mod is very likely to mark a R/A flag on that as helpful, regardless of how they choose to delete it, but it's fp from Charcoal's POV, as far as I'm aware.
@Mast That's fair. It comes up a lot in here (and in SOCVR), and came up yesterday, in fact. Here's a message by Makyen about a post with a question in the title, and just filler text in the body. There's also a discussion on Teams about this.
While the guidance seems clear enough to me, I agree it would be nice if it were clearer (more explicit). If we decide such posts are TP, that's fine by me too. At the moment, some members, such as myself will mark those fp, and others tp, which is not ideal.
Yes, I see that. I gave fp for the reason I mentioned above. If that reason is incorrect (or there's something I'm missing), I'm happy to change my feedback.
I strongly disagree with this view. The title has an important role in questions and using it to contain (the only) content of a question is abuse of the title field and indicative of low quality in general.
Justification
The title is useful for much more than just "the first part of my questio...
@SurajRao Yes, I suspect that we just toss out the existing cached credentials when they fail too many times and never retry them. That's reasonable under the assumption that we will just be able to log in again. Unfortunately, when the SE system is down or in read-only mode, then we are unable to log in again, so the login fails and we reboot SD.
Basically, SD will recover, but it continues to use the SD instance's CPU at maximum. It would be nice if there was a little better handling of this particular case, particularly given that SE seems to be having user-impacting maintenance more frequently than they have in the past.
@Makyen I noticed a problem earlier today (before maintenance) where I was not logged on to the sites that have their own domain; presumably due to cookie expiration or clearing. I suspect that inhibits my ability to AutoFlag on those sites, some of which receive a fair share of spam. Not sure of a fix, perhaps one ping "Not logged in." (similar to the AutoFlag FP ping) would alert people to log into these sites manually:
> "You'll have to authenticate in each top-level domain, aka stackoverflow, severfault, superuser, mathoverflow, askubuntu, stackapps and stackexchange.".
@Rob That your browser wasn't logged in to any particular site shouldn't impact MS' use of the SE API token for your account. Those are separate systems. As far as I'm aware there isn't any ability for the SE API token to be valid on only a limited number of SE sites. It's an all-sites-or-nothing thing, as far as I'm aware.
As to autoflagging failures for you, the list of your autoflagging attempts doesn't indicate anything unusual or that there's a problem. There's one failure on the first page, but the error text (shown on hover) is indicative of MS being rate limited at that time, not a problem specific with your account.
@Rob The only thing I did note is that your autoflagging preferences don't include Cardano, but you have an account on that site, so I'd assume you want to be autoflagging there. You should also check your autoflagging conditions for Cardano, as the site is probably not in those either. See the pinned message about Cardano and checking autoflagging conditions/preferences on the ----> starboard for direct links to those pages.
I checked all three of my conditions, and Cardano was enabled for each one. I saved the edit so it is now recently updated with that site set (as it was before today). The only site disabled for me (and some others) is MSE, because one mod rejects too many flags; that has been discussed with the person.
Don't know why your admin panel said that I have it disabled.
@Rob As I mentioned, I only actually checked your flagging preferences. I guessed you might need to check your flagging conditions too. It's good that it's in your flagging conditions, but in order to actually autoflag, it needs to be in at least one of your flagging preferences and at least one of your flagging conditions.
Sorry I forgot to add the reason. This is not an honest link-only answer to a tutorial, this is the same site that appeared in other deleted posts in the past. I see it as spam because of all the ads on the site.
@SmokeDetector At least 3 recent answers by the user (2 on the same question), all linking to same off-site article. All answers have been deleted by a site mod.
@Makyen Thanks again, yes it was off there, fixed. I think the last time I visited 'Clifford's Webpage' was at the start of my time here at CHQ. All is good now.
@Rob np. Yeah, the preferences is something which people think about less. It would be nice if we had something along the lines of an "include all sites", "include all sites except []" options, and/or "automatically add any new sites to this flagging preference/condition" for how to specify both the flagging preferences.
@Makyen +1 for auto-add. Ideally if it's added to individual conditions it should update the preferences; but not the reverse, because for some people (with more than condition setting) it would overwrite multiple settings; which wouldn't be what I'd want (at least not without a warning / Are you sure? message).
I strongly disagree with this view. The title has an important role in questions and using it to contain (the only) content of a question is abuse of the title field and indicative of low quality in general.
Justification
The title is useful for much more than just "the first part of my questio...
