I would go with NAA on it myself, but I've heard some people say that they consider abuse of the answer box as R/A. I can't speak to the fine points of distinction there.
@Shree I agree that the post is not really deserving of a R/A flag (though I'm on the fence about that). However, TP feedback to SD seems correct, since we would want to block that content at a system level.
@Shree As I understand it, the general litmus test a post should pass through is "If Smokey was employed at a system-level, would we want to block this type of content?" and to me, that post is pretty firmly in the "Yes, we'd wanna block that" category. The flag used should probably be a bit more nuanced, though (I flagged as NAA personally) and I definitely agree that a red flag penalty is potentially too harsh for that particular kind of content.
You have over 10k on SO, so if you wanted to raise a mod flag to bring the potentially erroneous red flag deletion to the attention of the mods, you can raise one on that deleted post. I don't think the mods would mind, but I'm unsure how willing a mod would be to clear the flags on something like that. Some are pretty seriously in the "Nuke it from orbit" category while others are more lenient.
@cigien Watch command with regex is ok but give a penalty for new users to ask for a new solution is not looks fine. Generally, I give tp without a flag for that type of context if I think it's tp for SD and we would want to block that content at a system level but not flagged. I don't use UserScript :D
Manually tp is fine some time.
There are some button to change feedback within 12 hours without the help of RO :)
Matched by the following regexes: cyber\.lord1010@gmail\.com on line 19650 of watched_keywords.txt cyber[\W_]*+lord\d*(?:[\W_]*+(?:at[\W_]*+)?gmail(?:[\W_]*+(?:dot[\W_]*+)?com)?)? on line 20606 of watched_keywords.txt
@Shree I'm not sure I follow. What does this have to do with watching, or regexes? As to the feedback, I'm comfortable with my TP for the reasons I stated. I broadly agree that a R/A flag is not suitable here, and I didn't raise a flag here as it happens.
@cigien Actually, I don't recall if I clicked on the rude button here, but I might have and the flag didn't get raised because the post was already deleted.
@cigien Thanks for not flagged as R/O. I strongly want @rene thought. Why? I believe Makyen also read the transcript and say some monologues which I always love to read :)
@Shree Ah, I see. More opinions can't hurt :) And Makyen's messages are definitely very informative.
@Shree By the way, Makyen has left a comment on the MS report, so they may not feel the need to elaborate on that in the transcript, in case you're waiting for that.
> While this is reasonably TP (i.e. reasonable to block at the system level), it's not something which should be deleted by red flags (i.e. autoflagged).
@Shree my assesment was that for an unregistered account and so less effort I considered it to be trolling that is R/A in my book. I don't care that unregistered account gets a -100 penalty now. They can't drop below 1 anyway. I don't agree that the mod goes soft on handling this but that is maybe a mod team directive they follow. I'm not elected, I can flag what I want.
@rene Rene I don't want to question you. I respect your decision. You always understand better than me. Just question "Unregistered user ask for a new solution for old question is worthy for R/A or NAA ?"
If you put in a number and a bunch of question marks then yes. If they asked: Is this still valid in 2021 or do there exist newer ways to solve this? then an NAA would have been my flag of choice. I'm not going to guess what they mean. They have plenty of time to put some effort in. If they don't want to invest time, nor will I.
Hesitate to say but @rene please spent some time on the SoBotics room and you find so many answers like that and we flag as NAA(Not RA). I am not challenging your SEDE expertise.
I don't see how SEDE expertise is relevant at all to this, or why the copious amount of good work you do in SOBotics is relevant. All we're talking about is this one answer's content. That's all :)
@Spevacus fun fact and interesting, I left this room after flag +50k flags with some miss understood. I only join the room when some OP have some trouble :). I know the room and rule. But less than rene, Makyen, tripleee. They are always my inspiration.
@Ollie 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.
> Numbers-only title, phone number detected in title, potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title ---------- Numbers-only title - Position 0-10: 9015080080 Phone number detected in title - Phone number: 9015080080 Potentially bad keyword in body - 9015080080 found verbatim Potentially bad keyword in title - 9015080080 found verbatim
No problem at all, that was very easily missed. I checked the profile and saw that they had been a member for over 30 days and figured I would double check that it was actually just nonsense, and saw that it actually had some code that FIRE couldn't display.
Not something a mod should have to intervene on. It's still code-only with an error message as its title, so some changes should be made that can't be made by the community before it gets undeleted.
@Ollie 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.
@Ollie 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.
@Shree My opinion on it is very similar to what's already been mentioned. From SD's POV, it's something that's reasonable to block at the system level. OTOH, it is a new user who appears to be asking for an answer updated to versions of the underlying software which are available in 2021. However, the "answer" content they used to ask for an updated answer is difficult to differentiate from things which look like trolling. In fact, it borders on a rude way of making that request.
So, while I agree that imposing the R/A penalty is fairly harsh (even if they can't loose 100 rep, their IP address is blocked for up to 14 days), I wouldn't decline R/A flags on that answer. I actually only saw the answer after it was deleted and all the spam/R/A flags marked helpful, so didn't have the option to mark them as declined, even if I'd wanted to. I did dispute the spam/R/A flags, re-delete the "answer", and leave a comment for the OP.
So was the one where I left the comment :p Not particularly bright if you ask me. Isn't it obvious that we already know they're linking to their own articles?
@SmokeDetector The last time this came up was over 2 years ago, when there was 1 NAA, and 1 FP. At the moment, there are 3 NAA, and 2 FP on MS, and 9 hits on SE. There's still no TP recorded in MS, or other evidence that I can see indicating this is spam. At the very least, I feel it's time to downgrade this to a watch.
@cigien If it's generating FP for us, rather than TP, then it should be downgraded to a watch. For more context, there are >70 deleted posts on SO linking to that site. However, that there are a large number of unreported posts doesn't mean that we shouldn't be moving it to the watchlist from the blacklist if it's not keeping up a very high %TP over time.
