Charcoal HQ

ArtOfCode

20:00

@Undo should be aware of this ^

Magisch

Horribly low effort and off topic, but an actual question

Pops

How'd it come to your attention that it was false? System keep track of votes it casts and monitor the eventual outcome of the posts automatically?

Undo

Manual feedback

Magisch

@Pops 99% of times, there's people in this room

We manual feedback on every single report

ArtOfCode

@Pops the feedback on it (those two red crosses) were put there by humans, who also happened to ping me about it

Magisch

20:01

Every report gets at least one qualified feedback, either through this room or metasmoke review

ArtOfCode

i.e. I knew about that having happened within about two minutes of it happening

Undo

Was on a call, reading transcript

heh, that's awesome

Gotta remember to leave it at one on that oddball site where they cranked down the 6-flag threshold

ArtOfCode

@Undo neither of us ever built a UI for per-site max flags, so you'll need to enable it manually with a console. Beware of Workplace and ELU.

Undo

Are those the only two?

ArtOfCode

AFAIK

angussidney

20:08

Morning everyone

Undo

Okay, set to 3 on all sites except ELL, Workplace, and meta sites

angussidney

And hi @Pops, great to see that you've popped in again

Undo

So we should be only constrained by the global setting now

Ferrybig

@angussidney evening :)

Undo

Thanks Pops, great to make progress on this! :)

@ArtOfCode Whatdya think of defining a simple formula for max flags for a post? Something as simple as floor(reason_weight/100) might be plenty

Pops

20:10

Hi angussidney, Undo, Ferrybig.

ArtOfCode

@Undo ya know, I was thinking this earlier. I'd be happy with a generic round instead of floor, actually

Magisch

@Undo imo not worth it

Undo

@ArtOfCode Only reason I floored it is that 180-type things aren't as awesome, overall

where's my pretty graph

Magisch

Our FP rates are so low that whether we 3 flag 99,75% or 99,98% posts is largely same in effect

ArtOfCode

@Undo I'm thinking that given the obviousness of our disclaimers, I'm happy pushing the max up without making everyone set themselves up again. Might do a mass ping, though. Thoughts?

Magisch

20:12

@Undo If we have a metric thats unreliable enough to not want to trust it with max_flags then we shouldn't have it autoflagged at all

Undo

@ArtOfCode Could be done, we have chat IDs for everyone anyway

ArtOfCode

@Undo was just gonna look at the list of names and ping 'em all manually, actually :)

Undo

yeah, that'd be the hard way

Magisch

(Imo)

Undo

ap User.where(:flags_enabled => true).pluck(:stackexchange_chat_id).map { |i| "@@#{i}" }.join(" ") would be the easy way

ArtOfCode

20:14

@Undo there's only 22 of 'em :) but if you're happy with not making everyone set up again, then I say we do it

@Undo but that would be sensible

Undo

Good to push the global max up, definitely

Pops

@Undo Yes, just those two, both of which are set to nuke at three instead of six.

Magisch

@Undo python hax

Undo

@Pops Great, thanks. We'll stay at 1 on those.

We should be able to stay on top of future changes like that, too, if they're announced on meta somewhere with the [spam] tag which they usually are

Magisch

no doubt

Undo

20:16

@ArtOfCode See graph above, the one that takes a little reading. There's a pretty significant accuracy bump at 200 and at 250

Maybe floor((reason_weight - 150)/50)?

I think that gets what we want

Magisch

I love how your graph bottoms out at 99%

ArtOfCode

@Undo 180 results in 0

I'd put a min 1 on it

Undo

oh, right

floor((reason_weight - 100)/50)

NobodyNada

maybe ceil instead of floor?

Magisch

I question why we're mathing out like this at all

Whats the purpose behind it

Undo

20:18

@NobodyNada same effect, yeah

Magisch

autoflagged FP will require our attention in any case

ArtOfCode

@Undo works

Magisch

Whats the difference if it's 1 auto flag or 3?

ArtOfCode

@Magisch we've gotta ping 3 people to retract flags instead of 1

Undo

@Magisch For now? It's probably not necessary. But it'd be nice to have the system in place, and if we're going to build it we might as well test it.

Magisch

20:19

@Undo It results in vastly fewer flags cast though

So it's partially getting rid of the system

ArtOfCode

Max flags is up at 3.

15

Glorfindel

@Undo should be EL&U, not ELL.

Magisch

Your current calculation would make a whole bunch of confirmed spam stay at 1 autoflag

For what?

Undo

@Glorfindel yeah, english.SE. Might have mispoke there, but it's ELU in the database

@Magisch metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/flagging/logs refutes that, mostly

Magisch

@Undo FR: Make it not pick the same user twice to flag

Like it did just now

Undo

20:20

@Magisch huh?

that shouldn't ever happen ever because math

Magisch

@Undo metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/flagging/logs

It tried to use 2 of MAR's flags on the last post

:p

Undo

those are different posts

Magisch

different posts with the same title and the same reason weights

I'm a failure

:/

Undo

yeah, threw me for a loop too.

Magisch

@Undo How? I have my weight at 180

Undo

20:21

(afk for a while)

ArtOfCode

Should probably let mods know this is happening...

yeah, gonna post a thing in TL

DavidPostill

@ArtOfCode I'm in - no need to ping me :)

SmokeDetector

New metasmoke user 'caffeineaddiction' created

CaffeineAddiction

angussidney

That doesn't look good

Undo

20:30

that's a fun one

CaffeineAddiction

I broke all the things

Undo

I thought we weren't doing that anymore

Ohhh

@CaffeineAddiction Happen to not have an mSE chat account?

CaffeineAddiction

mSE?

Undo

chat.meta.stackexchange.com/rooms/89/tavern-on-the-meta

Magisch

@ArtOfCode Meta post when?

CaffeineAddiction

20:31

I have a meta account on security.se

ArtOfCode

@Glorfindel @Andy @NobodyNada @Kyll @rene @Floern @angus @Magisch @tripleee @Avery @Ashish @M.A.R. @Mith @Cerb @ThomasWard @Yvette @doru @KazWolfe @Byte @Mego @JF @Ferry: FYI, max flags is now 3 per post. Heads-up, in case you want to opt out at this point.

@Magisch not meta post yet, just telling mods.

Undo

you did that manually, didn't you? :P

ArtOfCode

@Undo yep, I don't have a console :P

Kyll

"max flags"?

Magisch

@ArtOfCode should probably start composing it soon, though

Undo

20:32

@Magisch why?

ArtOfCode

@Kyll we can now cast up to 3 flags per post automatically

Magisch

at some point the public deserves to know we're doing this

Kyll

Woaah

Nice

CaffeineAddiction

ok, so is my account active at this point?

or is it broke?

Undo

If we have CM approval, I really don't have a reason to go fight the meta war

deploy pending

ArtOfCode

20:32

@CaffeineAddiction "active" as in what

it'll let you into review

Magisch

@Undo Not a war

We just need to inform people

CaffeineAddiction

I dont know, i just got that error ...

Magisch

I mean we're doing this with sites where the people are the moderation force

CaffeineAddiction

@ArtOfCode so i can use the ! commands for SD?

Undo

@Magisch It wouldn't end that way. For now, we don't need to go to meta

Magisch

20:33

@Undo You think it'd be a meta war?

ArtOfCode

@CaffeineAddiction if you want Smokey commands, we need to add you to the privilege list

CaffeineAddiction

oh, what does that req?

ArtOfCode

which we can do, if you like

Byte Commander

@ArtOfCode I noticed it and am still in. So Metasmoke is now randomly picking 3 users to let each cast a flag and the SmokeDetector account does not get used, correct?

ArtOfCode

@ByteCommander correct

Undo

20:34

Right

Byte Commander

cool, cool.

ArtOfCode

@Undo I'd be for doing a meta post at some point soonish. I think it's worth doing so that we tell people upfront, and we control the dialogue, instead of someone finding out in a couple months and saying "why have these people been half-nuking posts without telling us about it"?

Magisch

@ArtOfCode github.com/Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector/pull/525

For caffeine

deny/approve at your leisure

ArtOfCode

got it

Undo

@CaffeineAddiction Should be fixed now. Try metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/authentication/status again

CaffeineAddiction

20:37

cool, worked

Undo

Yep, worked that time.

Magisch

!!/pull

SmokeDetector

@Magisch CI build is still pending, wait until the build has finished and then pull again.

Magisch

really

CI is slow today

SmokeDetector

CI on 409af59 succeeded.

ArtOfCode

20:38

logging into GH, it's becoming more and more common to look at my notifications and then spend half an hour reading them because there's 10 or 11

Magisch

!!/pull

Now, work

SmokeDetector

[ SmokeDetector ] SmokeDetector started at rev 409af59 (ArtOfCode: Merge pull request #525 from magisch/patch-3) (running on teward/Aurora)

Restart: API quota is 9074.

Undo

@ArtOfCode amateur :P

Magisch

Pff

You're a mod on SO

You have more flags coming in faster then you can handle them at any given moment

:P

SmokeDetector

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in title, phone number detected in title, blacklisted user: ((jhjhjh))+ din+ na+ Facebook+ contact+ number+ (1844 762 8448 )+ Facebook+ telephone+ number+ (1844 762 8448 )+ united+ states by hfjfjjfgfg on webapps.SE

Undo

20:40

Not recently, actually. SOCVR's envoy to the group has added enough to keep them down

SmokeDetector

tpu- by Undo

Undo

@SmokeDetector hey, it worked

Magisch

@SmokeDetector autoflagged

SmokeDetector

@Magisch That post was automatically flagged, using flags from: Yvette, Mithrandir, Magisch.

Magisch

\o/

NobodyNada

20:40

\o/

nvm

Undo

works on reload, websocket parsing seems to be borked anyway

Magisch

good to see the system is performing

for now

Undo

I don't have any reason to think it wouldn't work any different with 3 than with 1 - it was built with this in mind anyway

Magisch

me neither

ArtOfCode

@Undo it's always nice to see it happening, though :)

Magisch

20:44

but I'm notoriously wary of software

Now the spam is getting the boot harder and more fervently then ever

Undo

@ArtOfCode Probably a good point. Ought to set up a google doc or something and draft something together

Magisch

Art is better at phrasing then me

mumbles project managers ....

ArtOfCode

@Undo mostly for the control of dialogue than anything else - I'd rather just be able to state our case, than have to fight off angry MJW's before we can even start stating it

Undo

aye

ArtOfCode

@Magisch Annoyingly calm, collected and communicative sometimes :)

Mithrandir

20:47

Just read the transcript. Nice!

Magisch

@ArtOfCode Worst case scenario would be someone going to MSE going "Who are these charcoal guys and why aren't the CMs banning them for their obvious sockpuppetry?"

Mithrandir

@ArtOfCode For some reason, I got no ping and no inbox notification there.

ArtOfCode

@Mithrandir huh, I wonder if @Mith conflicted with something else

Mithrandir

@Magisch And then one of saying 'This is what we do; here's a CMs approval'.

ArtOfCode

@Mithrandir but in this case we'd have to fight off the MJW's before they start listening, which is why I want to get there first

Magisch

20:49

@Mithrandir You know how it goes

It goes into a circlejerk long before we get a chance to explain ourselves

CaffeineAddiction

Well, the more API keys you are using ... the harder it will for them to determine that its sock puppet-ing

Magisch

Controlling the conversation upfront is better. That way, people read our (hopefully rational and sensible) points before reading conspiratorial rants

Undo

Consideration: When making such a post, should we allow folks to sign up? It'd be a way to get a heck of a lot of IDs fast.

Magisch

The CMs know what we're doing

We're not hiding it

ArtOfCode

@Undo sign up to... MS, or to flagging?

Undo

20:50

flagging

Magisch

@Undo Pls no

Mithrandir

Both, why not?

ArtOfCode

The latter, no. I like that being restricted to people who deserve some free flags.

Magisch

The last thing we need is 100 people bandwagoning onto MS using the lowest possible weight to farm free flags

ArtOfCode

The former, go ahead, though we might want to cull reviewer roles on some of 'em

Undo

20:50

@ArtOfCode That's easy enough to control, though

ArtOfCode

@Undo it is?

NobodyNada

@Undo do we need more? we've got 22, times 10 divided by 3 gives us at least 73 posts per site

Magisch

It's a non-issue

there is no site that can exhaust 22 flaggers worth of flags, even with 5. And even if it could, that'd be self-correcting, from getting more the more helpfuls you have

Undo

@ArtOfCode If we wanted to keep flags to ourselves, suppose we had a group of 'core' users who always got 1 or 2 of the three slots, for example

ArtOfCode

It would be a good way to gather a lot of potential participants for emergencies - and that's a good thing - but I would like to see day-to-day flagging done at least mostly by our own people

Undo

20:52

Honestly, it's less about getting more API tokens and more about getting people invested in the idea

ArtOfCode

@Undo and emergency capacity doesn't hurt.

Magisch

What do you want with 500 api tokens

ArtOfCode

@Undo this would work - another role?

Undo

Folks who can sign up to reap rewards of work they didn't do are less likely to yell at you for creating said work.

@ArtOfCode That'd be one way, yeah

Magisch

Prepare for spamsday when drupal.SE gets 2000 spam posts in a day

Mithrandir

20:52

Drupal's been getting less

It's more apple and graphic design

ArtOfCode

It's Apple that's likely to get it

CaffeineAddiction

@ArtOfCode if there is an emergency of that magnitude im not sure SD is the correct solution tbh

Magisch

@Undo Not a bad idea

Undo

@Magisch What don't we want with those tokens is the question. Remember, we're God over the system, we can move flag allocations around however the heck we want.

Magisch

And by getting more people signed up, we'd also be getting more people to really support the idea

Undo

20:53

aye

Magisch

So future meta wars wouldn't be one sided

angussidney

If anything, we should keep autoflagging to Chq regulars just to guarantee that we can reliably ping them if something goes wrong

2

Magisch

Whats the worst case if a fp happens and the flagger cant be pinged

NobodyNada

mods can superping

Magisch

a declined or disputed flag

ArtOfCode

20:54

@Magisch declined flag

Undo

@angussidney We always have chat IDs on all three domains for everyone, and we have plenty of diamonds to go around

Magisch

Thats a non-issue

ArtOfCode

and we tell people enough about the potential for declined flags, so... yeah, okay

Undo

Honestly, though, at >99% I'm less concerned about that

angussidney

@NobodyNada but I'm an admin on MS, but not a mod, and I might need to do this

ArtOfCode

20:54

I'd be for allowing signups, with the core role implemented

Undo

@angussidney define 'need', though

Magisch

If someone said to me "You can get free flags but 0,02% of the time they'll be declined" i'd be like, "Where do I sign, this is more accurate then I am"

NobodyNada

@angussidney but we've got plenty of mods in here

ArtOfCode

@angussidney actually, we're not obligated to ping people if that happens

angussidney

True

Undo

20:55

People flag completely legit stuff as spam all the time. It wouldn't even raise an SO mod's eyebrow to get one or two flags on something legit

Magisch

If I got a declined flag from autoflagging, then so what

ArtOfCode

we've done it as a courtesy, but declined flags are a real possibility that people accept when they sign up

Magisch

I get declined flags from time to time

It happens

And if I get 300 good flags and 1 declined one

I mean well

Undo

like literally, if you watched my eyebrows while handling spam flags they'd stay perfectly level.

Magisch

punishment sets in when you get 25% of your last 20(?) declined

statistically impossible

angussidney

20:56

Here's my proposal: we don't talk about how to sign up in the meta post at all, to reduce the flood of signups. If people come in here asking, we can let them know how to then

Magisch

good idea

that way we get only really interested people

angussidney

^

Magisch

but still get people

Undo

4 mins ago, by Undo

Folks who can sign up to reap rewards of work they didn't do are less likely to yell at you for creating said work.

Magisch

I like that a lot.

Undo

20:57

^ My counterargument for that

ArtOfCode

@Undo yeah, that does negate the effect

Magisch

@Undo it does that

We'll still get a bunch of people

Undo

Not near the volume

like, probably two orders of magnitude less

ArtOfCode

What do we gain by obscuring how to sign up, given that our control over this is total and indisputable?

Magisch

The question is

Nathaniel

20:57

Random newbie question: what does this message indicate? Was this flag applied automatically somehow?

Magisch

Do you want and can you build the capacity to accomodate a potentially very popular, cm endorsed meta thread worth of people signing up

NobodyNada

@Nathaniel He gave feedback with FDSC

Mithrandir

@Nathaniel No, it means that he flagged as Not An Answer

ArtOfCode

@Nathaniel that was me manually flagging the post it referred to as NAA. I have a userscript that sent that feedback to our web dashboard.

Magisch

and are you comfortable with hosting so many api keys

ArtOfCode

20:58

@Magisch yes, it's EC2

Magisch

@Nathaniel It's feedback

Means ArtOfCode judged that post to be NAA

Undo

@Magisch I'm comfortable hosting my API key, which could do a heck of a lot more damage than anyone else's that would sign up for this. So yes.

rene

You rang?

Magisch

@Undo so go for it

ArtOfCode

@rene ding ding, scroll up

angussidney

20:59

Whatever we do, I think that our previous standard of at least 50 feedbacks required to sign up for autoflagging should be kept in place.

ArtOfCode

@angussidney for core, yes, absolutely

Nathaniel

@ArtOfCode Ah okay, makes sense – it was different from the replies to SD I see in here.

Undo

@ArtOfCode I like that as a compromise

ArtOfCode

@Nathaniel yeah, it just means it came through the metasmoke API instead of through chat

Magisch

@Nathaniel It's because it comes from FDSC

DavidPostill

20:59

@angussidney 50 correct feedbacks :)

Magisch

it's a userscript which automates feedback when we flag

angussidney

@ArtOfCode what do you mean by 'for core'

Magisch

So art flagged NAA and the userscript used that opportunity to feed back NAA on the post

Transcript for