@double-beep That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@double-beep That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching product name in body, Bad keyword in answer, and Bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Machavity Okay - thanks for the heads-up. As it was an unregistered user called "RTFM Man" I thought that if nothing else, the user would then be known to metasmoke if they posted anything else borderline.
@Machavity Until they post again (if they're a legit user that I've misunderstood) I'll not bother a mod - presumably nobody cares what a user with no posts is called. Obvs if they are really a troll then the account will be deleted anyway.
@double-beep That pattern looks like it's already caught by Blacklisted website in body and Blacklisted website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
I am totally flabbergasted by the actions of the moderator that took the below call. See image.
The image presented in OP's question showed an obviously referral to a commercial party (not shown here). As a non-expert in addressed language there was just a little doubt enough that it might be an...
@double-beep That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@double-beep 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.
@double-beep That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@double-beep 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.
@double-beep You're welcome to open an issue, but we are not blacklisting something that has 48.9 times more hits on SE (search 2) than there are TP for it in MS.
STDERR: To github.com:Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector.git ! [rejected] master -> master (fetch first) error: failed to push some refs to 'git@github.com:Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector.git' hint: Updates were rejected because the remote contains work that you do hint: not have locally. This is usually caused by another repository pushing hint: to the same ref. You may want to first integrate the remote changes hint: (e.g., 'git pull ...') before pushing again.
STDERR: To github.com:Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector.git ! [rejected] master -> master (non-fast-forward) error: failed to push some refs to 'git@github.com:Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector.git' hint: Updates were rejected because the tip of your current branch is behind hint: its remote counterpart. Integrate the remote changes (e.g. hint: 'git pull ...') before pushing again. hint: See the 'Note about fast-forwards' in 'git push --help' for details.
STDERR: To github.com:Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector.git ! [rejected] master -> master (non-fast-forward) error: failed to push some refs to 'git@github.com:Charcoal-SE/SmokeDetector.git' hint: Updates were rejected because the tip of your current branch is behind hint: its remote counterpart. Integrate the remote changes (e.g. hint: 'git pull ...') before pushing again. hint: See the 'Note about fast-forwards' in 'git push --help' for details.
@double-beep That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Zoe Matched by ^\s*<p>\s*(?:</?\w+/?>\s*)*<a href="(?!(?:[a-z]+:)?//(?:[^" >/.]*\.)*(?:(?:quora|medium|googleusercontent|youtube|microsoft|unity3d|wso|merriam-webster|oracle|magento|example|apple|google|github|imgur|stackexchange|stackoverflow|serverfault|superuser|askubuntu)\.com|(?:(?:lvcharts|php|jsfiddle|mathoverflow)\.net)|github\.io|youtu.be|edu|(?:(?:drupal|python|isc|khronos|mongodb|open-std|dartlang|apache|pydata|gnu|js|wordpress|wikipedia)\.org))[/"])\W*(?![\W\w]*?</(?:code|blockquote)>) on line 7078 of watched_keywords.txt
@quartata Basically, it's "link at start of post", with multiple domains excluded and excluding posts that contain <code> or <blockquote>. Its intent has been to collect data prior to moving it to it's own detection reason, where it's more obvious what it's doing and significantly easier to exclude a list of domains. That should have happened a while ago, but I'm running behind. The last I checked, it was running about 59% TP, with multiple posts where it's the only detection to catch TPs.
@Makyen That's 59% TP the last time I checked, based only on posts detected since the watch was added (actually since the original version was added, which was broader and had more FP). Looking at all posts in MS, i.e. including those from before it was added, shows a %TP in the mid to high 90's, which just highlights the biased nature of the data that MS has.
