@GrantGarrison which only matters if there was actually a second (and/or third) reason to supplement it. As of now, there hasn't been a fp with that reason triggering on google.com that has been autoflagged.
@GrantGarrison That's fair enough. It's basically a cost-benefit situation, and so far, the benefits have far outweighed the disadvantages. And also, it's a long way from the 300 we were suggesting for 5 autoflags, and with "just" 3 we can always reverse it :)
As an extra bit of data, url in title has caused 6604 posts to be autoflagged correctly, along with 2 false positives
@GrantGarrison Note though that the only autoflagged one was actually spam :)
Sorry hope you don't think I'm ganging up on you
It's a valid point, but I don't think we'd make a change unless either a lot of posts were caught over a couple of months (there you have a span of over a year), or posts were getting autoflagged that shouldn't
@CalvT븃 I actually like a debate because it helps show the benefits and problems of something instead of something just happening and no one knowing why.
@GrantGarrison Depends on your outlook - to me it's good because it means eOS doesn't get much spam :)
In that sense, fps aren't an issue, as long as we (as in Charcoal) can correctly identify them as fps
They become an issue when we start getting autoflags that are fps
That isn't happening, so in my view, it's not an issue
To catch the "non-blatant" spam, you have to have broad reasons, and having broad reasons is always going to generate fps. The point is to deal with those fps correctly
And in my view dealing with them correctly = not molesting them in any way
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, link following arrow in body, +2 more: What is Luna Trim? by Ince 19 on drupal.SE
