Hmm, I retraced my flag on that one. That looks like it could be a legit question.
@SmokeDetector Yeah, I'm not convinced that's spam (although it's been spam deleted, and user is destroyed on the site). Retracting my tp feedback as well.
I would totally mark spam flags on that as helpful, it does look quite spammy. But that website has been linked from a number of seemingly legit questions, so I'm not convinced enough to give tp, yet.
ah, that's true... If more posts come along that look legit (or at least more so than the other two), I'll reconsider my feedback and hold off on red flagging.
@Makyen That pattern appears to be homoglyph obfuscated. It's better to use the non-obfuscated number. Perhaps try: !!/blacklist-number 7319502230. That pattern may be a North American number. If it is, please use a format which starts with an optional 1 followed by possible separator text and has the main number in the format 731-950-2230 where - could be a single alpha character or any [\W_]*+. Alternately, you can add the comment (?#IS NorAm) to the end of the pattern to force also using the alternate normalized form, or (?#NO NorAm) if it's not a North American phone number and it's incorrectly recognized as one. Perhaps try !!/blacklist-number 731-950-2230. In order for a "number" to make an exact match, the pattern must begin with a digit or up to two of +,(,[, or { immediately followed by a digit. In order for a "number" to make an exact match, the pattern must end with a digit. Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
I'm torn between automatically using the deobfuscated being "helpful" and wanting SD to just do what we tell it to.
It's probably best for SD to just go ahead and use the deobfuscated version. Then, in the response, tell the user, and allow them to use -force if they really wanted the obfuscated version used.
Personally, I would like all the "help" I can get ;) There is a risk of blindly assuming that the watch is accurate if it goes through, but needing a "soft confirmation", i.e. just a warning that the added watch should be double checked, should help with that.
@cigien That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
Yeah, that's probably best. It wouldn't have gotten that particular one one to go through initially, given that it also had a NorAm issue, but it's probably significantly more likely that the wants the deobfuscated version used, given that we prefer to use it.
@SmokeDetector fp- Given how related this question is to the user's other questions, I'm inclined to think that the 2 questions posted by the user with a link to printlimit are in fact meant as examples, rather than spam.
The quota_remaining property was not in the API response. Error: Violation of backoff parameter at 18:19:04 UTC. Backing off on requests for the next 12 seconds. Previous URL: https://api.stackexchange.com/2.2/questions
The quota_remaining property was not in the API response. Error: Violation of backoff parameter at 18:19:18 UTC. Backing off on requests for the next 12 seconds. Previous URL: https://api.stackexchange.com/2.2/questions
The quota_remaining property was not in the API response. Error: Violation of backoff parameter at 18:19:33 UTC. Backing off on requests for the next 12 seconds. Previous URL: https://api.stackexchange.com/2.2/questions
The quota_remaining property was not in the API response. Error: Violation of backoff parameter at 18:19:47 UTC. Backing off on requests for the next 12 seconds. Previous URL: https://api.stackexchange.com/2.2/questions
The quota_remaining property was not in the API response. Error: Violation of backoff parameter at 18:20:01 UTC. Backing off on requests for the next 12 seconds. Previous URL: https://api.stackexchange.com/2.2/questions
The quota_remaining property was not in the API response. Error: Violation of backoff parameter at 18:20:15 UTC. Backing off on requests for the next 12 seconds. Previous URL: https://api.stackexchange.com/2.2/questions
@SmokeDetector OK. Now we just wait to see if it fixes the intermittent CI issues which appear to be because of multi-threading (in the areas which were changed).
@Catija It would be nice if you answered my SO for Teams question asking why the quota was increased. I don't know which of Makyen's messages you're referring to, and it would be nice to have a summary others can refer to.
@gparyani It was in a private room. Basically, it was determined that there wasn't any reason not to give Charcoal increased quota, and so it was increased both to allow the project to spend more time focused on catching spam rather than engineering around staying within the quota, as well as (as noted in tripleee's answer) to accommodate repeated scanning of posts edited soon after posting (in what would have been formerly the grace period).
@SmokeDetector Note: This is not for a full day, as there was another rollover detected between the most recent two which were at the "expected" time of day.
Thanks. Yeah, I like looking at the stats too. Although, I don't really need to be actually keeping the ones I've been creating for rollovers, as the data is in chat, once output.
@SmokeDetector fp It appears the OP messed up the Markdown, and the question is off-topic for seeking recommendations, but it doesn't appear to be spam
@SmokeDetector tpu Maybe technically vandalism, but it seems like they may be trying to cheat on something and they’d do it again so going tpu instead of tp
