I marked it as FP because the site doesn't look like spam but the username is just sciencetoolbar which I suppose is somewhat suspicious. It wasn't caught by any other criteria though.
@HyperNeutrino I did tp-, but did not flag as spam. My choice was based on the SD Feedback Guidance stating that we should use k for undisclosed affiliation. IMO, both flagging and adding to the blacklist are a bit harsh for a first offense that isn't exceptionally blatant, or egregious in some other manner.
The problem is it's difficult to let AF leave a comment "links are bad" (which reports NAA), but to mark as fp since that is the general consensus apparently
> Url in title, pattern-matching website in body, pattern-matching website in title ---------- Title - Position 14-28: supermarket.co Title - Position 1-31: http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk Body - Position 14-28: supermarket.co
how to troll people here: make a post and then load tons of spam and other spam-triggering things into HTML comments and then people who go to the post or look at FIRE will have no idea what's going on :D and then someone will look at the source and then you'll get in trouble lol
@K.Dᴀᴠɪs I love it when the people from Microsoft call up saying my computer is sending error messages, after an hour pretending to follow their instructions, I confess and tell them I have a mac :)
@quartata My last spammer wanted to give me 4.5 billion dollars from my dead relative who apparently passed away, all he needed was my bank details. Shame i never had those to hand...
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, mostly dots in body, numbers-only title, title has only one unique char: 111111111111111 by Joe Chan on mathoverflow.net
SELECT
COUNT(DISTINCT q.id) AS 'PostCount',
MAX(q.flag_count) AS 'FlagCount',
AVG(TIMESTAMPDIFF(SECOND, q.created_at, q.deleted_at)) AS 'ATTD'
FROM (
SELECT
posts.id,
posts.created_at,
posts.deleted_at,
sites.max_flags_per_post,
COUNT(DISTINCT flag_logs.id) AS 'flag_count',
SUM(reasons.weight) AS 'reason_weight'
FROM posts
INNER JOIN flag_logs ON posts.id = flag_logs.post_id
INNER JOIN posts_reasons ON posts.id = posts_reasons.post_id
INNER JOIN reasons ON posts_reasons.reason_id = reasons.id
The page you're trying to visit requires more privileges. You need to have the Developer role to view this page.
You currently have the following roles: Reviewer, Admin, Code Admin, Flagger, Core, and Smoke Detector Runner.
if that's not a confusing set of permissions and error message, I'm not sure what is
SELECT
COUNT(DISTINCT q.id) AS 'PostCount',
MAX(q.flag_count) AS 'FlagCount',
AVG(TIMESTAMPDIFF(SECOND, q.created_at, q.deleted_at)) AS 'ATTD'
FROM (
SELECT
t.id,
t.created_at,
t.deleted_at,
t.reason_weight,
sites.max_flags_per_post,
COUNT(DISTINCT flag_logs.id) AS 'flag_count'
FROM (
SELECT
posts.id,
posts.site_id,
posts.created_at,
posts.deleted_at,
SUM(reasons.weight) AS 'reason_weight'
FROM posts
INNER JOIN posts_reasons ON posts.id = posts_reasons.post_id
Waiting for latest dump to import and I'll run again on that to get results
I thought that too and I was like "seems like almost legit question with random spam link" and then I realized that the site linked was the one in the question
@Undo it's the date clause that does it. I put it in the lowest-nested query. SQL executes that first, so it's only doing a join on a couple hundred rows there, and since that query only returns those couple hundred, the outer queries don't have to do much work either. If you experiment by taking the date limit out of the query and running just that deepest nested query, it'll take multiple minutes.
@Undo I got a note from stackoverflow moderators saying: "Hello, I'm writing in reference to your Stack Overflow account: ... We've recently received several complaints about edits that you've made to questions and answers, where additional wording was added that wasn't present in the original. In several cases, the answerer has rolled back these edits and indicated that they were not what they had originally intended.
I realize that your intent was to improve the answers with these edits, and we appreciate the desire to help. I just wanted to point out that we had been getting some co…
and you were mentioned in the response, I guess you're one of the moderators that put those types of notices together.
Is there any stackoverflow manifesto on what constitutes an acceptable correction of a question or answer and one that's over the line? It seems that letting high reputation users just change any question and any answer without approval seems like it's bound to cause all sorts of these disagreements.
It's a subjective problem that can only be handled on a case by case basis.
My common workflow when I see a blatant spam post by a 1 rep user is:
flag as spam (when I'm a mod this auto-deletes)
go to user profile
As a mod, I destroy the user. As a regular user I spam flag the other spam posts linked from the profile
These are a bit more clicks than absolutely necessa...
My common workflow when I see a blatant spam post by a 1 rep user is:
flag as spam (when I'm a mod this auto-deletes)
go to user profile
As a mod, I destroy the user. As a regular user I spam flag the other spam posts linked from the profile
These are a bit more clicks than absolutely necessa...
