[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad ns for domain in answer, bad keyword in answer, blacklisted website in answer, potentially bad ip for hostname in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer (259): Advantage of using compound assignment by Sheira Spam on stackoverflow.com
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, bad keyword in link text in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer, potentially problematic ns configuration in answer (170): VS Code configuration for c++ (Mac) by campbell on stackoverflow.com
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in answer, no whitespace in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer, potentially bad keyword in username, repeating characters in answer (265): Healpy graticule boundary for orthview by fffffffff on stackoverflow.com
@SmokeDetector Possibly a good faith answer to a spam question. User appears to have other reasonable contributions, and profile doesn't match the pattern of the spam in the question. Has been custom flagged by another user.
@Ollie That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body Append -force to the command if you really want to add the pattern you entered.
@Spevacus cc @cigien: If you're still wondering, inserting an @match with https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/11540/* below the match for the regular chat page does the trick for me (tested just above).
I also changed the match for rooms/11540 to rooms/11540/*.
@cigien yw. I don't need it that urgently either, but given how simple the hack is I thought I might as well. It does make it a touch easier to go through the transcripts without manually searching MS for TPs and for who's watched what.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, potentially bad asn for hostname in body, potentially bad ip for hostname in body, potentially bad keyword in body, +2 more (268): Quickbooks Are good? by steve evans on stackoverflow.com
@EricAya As of right now, I can't find any concrete evidence that it's spam. It does seem fishy that they'd just insert those links in the answer. There are also some pretty similar articles on the therefercode.com website and their own (vlivetricks.com), which is also fishy, but nothing that would make me hit the red flag button.
