[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, pattern-matching website in body, +4 more (594): Keto 6X Diet is good by elijappea on meta.SE
@Shree That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching website in answer and Pattern-matching website in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Shree That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching website in answer and Pattern-matching website in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching website in body and Pattern-matching website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching product name in body, pattern-matching website in body (393): RX Max Force Trial Reviews by khwarikhi on stackoverflow.com
@JF "Suicide threat, please consider escalating from https://<site>/admin/cm-message/create/<user-id>" would be pretty good, as long as it's not obvious trolling
If you click the little “>>” button in the bottom-right corner, you get access to various non-emoji symbols, and the ones used for shortcuts are under the ⌘ icon.
@JF Actually, it should have been in this revision, but I failed to include it. I've committed the change locally, so it will be in the next version. There really isn't a good reason it didn't end up in there (just ended up rushed and tired when bumping the version number). Someone else has said they will submit a PR for a different item today, so I'll push it out when that happens.
@Glorfindel If this domain is ever a problem, we might want to use a regex that includes part of the path. The post that got it watched was bitmex.com/register/ (partial URL from the post).
alright, it looks like my invalidated feedbacks have suddenly boomed...cc @Art, can you please check if everything's right with the new resolution system?
I'm pretty sure invalidated feedbacks don't go from 16 to 69 in a matter of a few days...
and...it looks like there's no particular concentration of invalidations
@EriktheOutgolfer That would not be inconsistent with the new resolution system. You'll need to check individual invalidations to see if there's a problem. While mine didn't increase quite so dramatically, it did double (or so, not sure).
The new resolution system invalidates any feedback that is in the minority, and any that were equal in quantity, but the combination of those users on one side had a higher weighting (based on the permissions the users have on MS).
@EriktheOutgolfer Yes, it was much more conservative. It required that the invalidated feedback be out-voted by 2. The new one requires outvoting by 1, or that the user(s) on the other side have more weight. For instance, at least one of mine was invalidated as one of two total feedbacks on the post.
Unfortunately, the new resolution system means that the only methods for disagreeing with even a single existing feedback are to raise a "needs admin attention" or post it here in chat asking for other people to look at it and hope that more people agree with you than the already existing feedbacks.
IMO, it would have been much better to put all of those posts in a review queue (which shows any comments on the post) and wait for them to accumulate feedback such that the conflict was resolved by meeting the 2 more than the other type criteria. The goal is accurate feedback, not just to have no conflicts.
Some of my frustration stems from, under the old criteria, having specifically chosen to add conflicting feedback on a number of posts where I could have raised a "needs moderator attention", under the belief that the conflict would result in a human review.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not perfect. Looking at my feedbacks which were invalidated, there are definitely some that should have been invalidated. OTOH, there were a greater number where I still disagree with the now-only active feedbacks, and many instances where the now-only feedbacks are inconsistent with our feedback guidelines, or which don't take into account information in comments (which may not have been available at the time the people gave feedback).
the other thing I'm considering is this...literally 0.03% until I get there, it was definitely almost 3% before... creep
(note: that might not be true anymore, can't be sure)
@Makyen the weird thing is, your feedback most probably kicked mine over here, but my feedback over there is still alive :D (might have to do with the new resolution system being instantiated just before I became a code admin? ...)
if D presses "fp-", while he wanted to press "tp-", while C actually thinks the post is "fp-", but B has a smaller weight than the equal weights of A, C and D, wouldn't that invalidate A and B's feedbacks when it's time to?
there's a probability A and B won't notice the mistake there
@SmokeDetector "Have a look or look in the book." While, NAA, I do consider it a bit rude/unwelcoming. I'd consider it a bit rude, even without the current "welcoming" climate.
@SmokeDetector Google translate: "Check that. Audio speakers have problems?" This is beginning to feel like trolling.
@SmokeDetector The user has a English language answer on SO, which sounds like they are competent in English. That makes me lean significantly towards thinking the person is trolling, or that their account is compromised.
