@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad ip for hostname in answer, Pattern-matching website in answer, Bad ip for hostname in body, and Pattern-matching website in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Makyen 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.
@Makyen 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.
@EliahKagan Matched by digitalcurrency14(?:[\W_]*+(?:a[\W_]*+t[\W_]*+)?+g[\W_]*+m[\W_]*+a[\W_]*+i[\W_]*+l[\W_]*+(?:d[\W_]*+o[\W_]*+t[\W_]*+)?+c[\W_]*+o[\W_]*+m)? on line 13415 of watched_keywords.txt
@EliahKagan 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.
@SmokeDetector tpu- It's deliberately made to look like it's just NAA, but the link has nothing to do with the question (or any question for SO). It's a spam link to a site offering movies for download.
@EliahKagan That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Machavity ty, I'd say it's marginal. It seemed that it could be a (very misguided) attempt to get help with the poster's website, which would make it NAA but not spam per se. Guidance I've encountered in the past tells me to err on the side of not spam because of the drastic penalties for a validated spam flag.
@EliahKagan That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Machavity Changed, thanks. Didn't check out the link, though I guess it's a possibility that they were asking for help about adding features to their illegal site :P
@EliahKagan That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword with email in body and Bad keyword with email in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
> Potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title, potentially bad keyword in username ---------- Potentially bad keyword in body - Position 0-17: cybergoldenhacker Potentially bad keyword in title - Position 0-17: cybergoldenhacker Potentially bad keyword in username - Position 0-17: cybergoldenhacker
@EliahKagan 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.
@SmokeDetector Undisclosed affiliation. The user also has other posts linking to their site where affiliation is undisclosed. In particular this question, where the OP made an edit 3 months after posting which changed the URL for the link in the post to their own site, while leaving the displayed URL as developer.apple.com. That change appears deliberately deceptive. I've mod-flagged.
@SmokeDetector naa- At first glance this looks NAA, then on further inspection it contains--or mentions--a solution so it looks fp ...but given the broader context, I believe it actually is NAA. The previously existing answer covers the same thing, and this seems to be an attempt to confirm or comment on it rather than to offer a solution.
@SmokeDetector This seems like an attempt to use Stack Overflow to report a bug in a website, which makes no sense and is the sort of thing that's beneficial to close and delete immediately (VLQ). But unless there's context I'm missing, I don't think it's spam or rude/abusive.
@SmokeDetector tpu- Without further context, this could plausibly just be a very poorly researched question (or an argument could be made that it were, anyway). But the original version sheds light on the intent behind it.
@SmokeDetector This has disclosure and does appear intended to answer the question. The user's only (non-deleted) post on any SE site is a post on apple.se that also promotes this tool, but it was well-received. I think this doesn't really meet the definition of spam. It's probably fp or naa; I'm not sure which.
@SmokeDetector tpu- There are three posts by this user, all promoting the same company and domain, and the posts are the same except for customization applied to create the appearance that they are specific to the questions being asked. All three start with, "I am the founder of a startup that is attempting to solve this exact problem."
@Dharman (regarding your MS feedback) It's not a single post. That was their third post reported here. Smokey reported the other two a few messages above that one.
@SmokeDetector tpu- Undisclosed affiliation. This is the same link as in the post author's profile. Also, the post doesn't answer the question that was asked. The question is asking which symbol should be used, not asking how to type a particular symbol.
@SmokeDetector The connection to the linked site is tenuous at best. Someone has since edited the link out of the post.
