[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, no whitespace in body, repeating characters in body, repeating characters in title (326): wwwwwwwwwwwwwww ✏️ by Krysten Villalon on chemistry.SE
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, bad keyword with email in answer, messaging number in answer, pattern-matching email in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer (362): Please help finding missing money by Nelly Smith on monero.SE
@SmokeDetector I marked this as TP, because the edit changes the title from English to non-English. Given that SO is English-only, I consider that vandalism.
@Makyen So if I'm understanding this correctly, if the question had been posted with the non-English title in the first place (and got reported for whatever reason), that would be FP, but since the report was for an edit that changed the title to non-English, that makes it TP?
@cigien That's the way I'd look at it. It depends on if you want to call changing the title from English to non-English vandalism, or not. IMO, it's something that we'd want to prevent, and basically always revert at least the title change.
@Makyen That's actually something I've been wondering about. We'd like to prevent this edit happening at the system level, that makes sense. OTOH, why don't we want to prevent content like that being posted in the first place? i.e. why would we give TP feedback to an edit but FP feedback to the same content as a first submission? Is there something about how the system level blocks would work that makes these different cases?
@cigien While it might be something that should be blocked at the system level for first posting, the focus of this project isn't as a quality filter for Stack Exchange, unless that quality is way below the limits (i.e. at the spam and R/A levels). As an edit, it's something that appears to be fairly easily identified as vandalism.
I'd probably put it at something similar to adding light obscenities used for emphasis into a post. In many cases, we wouldn't consider them to be TP if in the original (i.e. it would be reparable offensive), but do consider them TP when added as an edit.
@Makyen This is something that I've been told before but I've never fully internalized it. I guess the difficulty for me is in imagining why the focus would be primarily on existing content instead of incoming content as well, though I'm sure there must be good reasons for it. I'll try hard to keep that in mind when deciding how to provide feedback. Thanks for the clarification.
I was unaware of the difference with regards to light obscenities. It makes sense when looked at as vandalism. Noted.
@Makyen You're right, it makes the distinction between edits and submissions quite clearly. I appear to have misread and/or misunderstood that part from the beginning. I'll read through the whole feedback guidance again, this time keeping in mind that we are not focusing on filtering for quality of first posts. Thank you very much for explaining this.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, pattern-matching product name in body, potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title (195): Nuleaf Naturals CBD by VivianeSchupe on apple.SE
@SmokeDetector weird, maybe that's spam after all but the original answer was fine. Should we roll back the edit which added the spam link, or just spam flag the entire answer? There are other answers which basically seem to point out the same issue
@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.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of answer, link at end of answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer, username similar to website in answer (160): Why the process is suspended? by Revolve AI on superuser.com
@Kulfy 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.
