@DanielWiddis Welcome. You have set only one Autoflag condition. It is optional to set any, and you can set them as you wish (limited to better than 99.75%), but you only have one and it comes out to 99.8228% & 99.8495% - thanks for setting it up. Note: As you get closer to 99.75 you will rarely get a ping that you have flagged incorrectly - but even at more conservative settings an occasional ping is possible. --- We would appreciate it if you'd 'reply hook' the message to say if you agree
When Smokey pings you that there is a problem with your Autoflag reply to that message to say that you agree or disagree with having received the ping.
It's fine as-is - just giving you a thorough (Rubiks™) explanation.
@Rob Is that text from somewhere, or did you just compose it?
@DanielWiddis If a flag of yours is used as an autoflag, and someone gives FP or NAA feedback on the report for that post, then you will be pinged in here. The intent is to get you to take a look at the post and make your own choice as to leaving the flag active or retract it.
If we had the capability to automatically retract flags, then we would do so under those circumstances, even though those pings are sometimes caused by someone misclicking when giving feedback. However, the SE API does not have the capability for us to retract flags.
Instead of @ Rob and MEE your name would be there, you'll know because it's a ping - and you can ask any of us for assistance.
The need to reply with your decision and the responsibility to withdraw erroneous flags isn't completely spelled out - we prefer to have things smooth on the other end so people (Mods) don't come here to complain that we've left a bunch of downvotes and they've dismissed the incorrect flags. Quick is great, days later is better than never.
@Makyen Handrolled. I don't see a new user very often so I thought I'd assist with the welcome wagon; and detail something that's been explained at length to me (that's not obvious to everyone).
@Makyen Is it more like a statement from some developers? Grepping through git logs/git blame gives me nothing about it being disabled (keyword used: feedback, conflict, resolve, resolution). It looks like something malfunctioning to me.
Anyways is it intended to be disabled? If so, we can just delete the line in schedule.rb and pretend nothing happened (until next time we re-enable it)
@user12986714 It's @ArtOfCode's project (MS automatic feedback conflict resolution). As I understand it, it's been disabled for quite some time. I don't recall when that happened. If you want to make adjustments to the schedule.rb file, you should run them past @ArtOfCode and @Undo.
So tldr for people looking at the pings: the conflicting feedback job appears to be disabled in reality but not in code. It stopped working at around post id 184746 and feedback id 481742, time 2019-07-04 20:31:09 UTC . Some suggested that it was manually disabled but the corresponding line is still in schedule.rb
@ArtOfCode Is it possible for it to get disabled at a server level or kind of things? Because it is very strange for it to be in the scheduler and the job itself not commented out.
iboysoft 1/13 but a large number of these posts need a review - the large amount of posts by a single user should probably be evaluated metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/domains/38590
@tripleee I only see 3 posts from the same user there... many duplicates (not sure why). Checked several, seems just a well written troubleshooting guide that many reference.
ah yes they are probably repeats which were reported again and again
all the answers on a question get scanned and every time somebody added an answer the same answer with a watched keyword will have triggered a SmokeDetector report
one can sd ignore such posts to prevent them from being reported additional times but these will probably not have been noticed at the time
Q: the differential equation post here isn't quite spam but it's clearly not a question / totally off topic. I flagged "not math" at the site. Is there something I should do on SD?
@DanielWiddis it looks like an attempt at asking a question, with the text of the post just being a copy/paste to fill in the character count. So I'd probably mark it as f
@DanielWiddis yeah. If there was no question at all, and it was purely jibberish/copypaste, we would consider it rude/abusive (abuse of the system), so k. But since there is a question, it's simply f (with downvotes warranted for lack of effort when asking :))
[:55466572] <processed without return value> [:55466561] <processed without return value> [:55466540] <processed without return value> [:55466517] <processed without return value> [:55466474] That message is not a report. [:55466472] That message is not a report. [:55466450] <processed without return value> [:55466442] That message is not a report. [:55466396] <processed without return value> [:55466368] <processed without return value> [:55466357] <processed without return value> [:55466356] <processed without return value>
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, link at beginning of body, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ip for hostname in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, +2 more (239): How To Buy This Pills? by TerrenceAllen on 3dprinting.SE
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad ip for hostname in answer, bad keyword in answer, blacklisted website in answer, potentially bad ip for hostname in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer (279): Remote Desktop Linux to Linux by Riya K on askubuntu.com
@AndrewT. We currently have 0 hits on 1995apps\.open so I can't watchlist it, but good to keep in mind. If a blacklister decides to watch it anyway, fine with me.
@tripleee 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.
user435118
@Mast You used SD which takes a one word command per report, so that's a lot of reports :)
two of them seem vaguely on-topic if I understand the purpose of Biblical Hermeneutics correctly (though probably a generous interpretation) but two I think definitely NAA too
@Mast Meh. It is a copy of the post but attributed. It does attempt to answer the question. Still new enough here to not register a strong opinion but I would not call it "spam" personally.
Matched by the following regexes: supreme[\W_]*+rx(?:[\W_]*+(?:pill|\d++|[\da-f]{4,}+)s?)* on line 2251 of bad_keywords.txt offer4cart\.com on line 3716 of blacklisted_websites.txt
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, link at beginning of body, pattern-matching product name in body, potentially bad keyword in body (336): What is Canzana CBD Oil UK? by cbdcnza on meta.SE
Matched by the following regexes: (?-i:d20c6545ce7a7616279a82f48204a913)(?#apnews.com) on line 23025 of watched_keywords.txt apnews\.com/[0-9a-f]{32} on line 23169 of watched_keywords.txt
(?-i:d20c6545ce7a7616279a82f48204a913)(?#apnews.com) has 6 hits in 14 days, all TP, no FP. None of them are scoring lower than 280, so technically there's no reason to blacklist it yet. However, based on the guidelines for Preexisting Campaigns it looks like it would be valid to do so. Am I correct?
Matched by the following regexes: https?://[^<>"'\s]+-(?:canada|australia|africa|france|ireland|finland|usa|singapore|india|new-zealand|espana|italy|switzerland|belgium|d[ae]nmark|sweden|norway|poland|portugal|austria|sverige|polska|romania)(?=/[<>"'\s]|/$) on line 8743 of watched_keywords.txt k2appliances\.com on line 13035 of watched_keywords.txt
