@JeffSchaller 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.
@JeffSchaller 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.
@tripleee Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, I'd departed for the day. If you see it happen again, which you probably will, please perform the commands !!/threads and !!/queuestatus, preferably in the middle of it happening and, perhaps !!/threads after each additional posted identical report. Those might give us a bit more insight into what's happening internally.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with email in answer, potentially bad ip for hostname in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer, blacklisted user (157): Why did Elisha curse 42 boys? by 13of12 on hermeneutics.SE
@tripleee 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.
BTW: I'm fine with having the phone numbers for the call girl spam wave go directly to being blacklisted, similar to how we've been doing for the support number spam.
!!/watch- 222333444(?#While this is a phone number, looking for it normalized/obfuscated results in 18 FP and 0 TP, which is 18/27 of all watched number FP. So, we only want exact matches, at this time.)
!!/watch-force- 53[^\w,]*+53[^\w,]*+53[^\w,]*+53(?#While this is a phone number, looking for normalized versions has several FP and no TP since it was added.)
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Mostly punctuation marks in answer and Mostly punctuation marks in body Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@Jesse Even on SO, a link-only answer is an answer if the question is specifically asking for links/resources. In such cases, on SO, the question should normally be closed, rather than the answer deleted. I can't speak to the policy on link-only answers on all sites. On some sites, it's seemed that link-only was OK with them. My personal opinion is that such answers should be NAA in almost all cases, unless it's what the question is asking for, because just a link will become useless at some point.
@Makyen Just FYI: I've been looking at the performance of the number watchlist. There have been a couple of entries which resulted in a significant number of FP for the entry. [Finding out which entries do produce FP is a major reason why we have a watchlist.] After the removal of the two largest producers of FP (see above for 222333444, and @CodyGray's earlier removal of 53535353), the accuracy I see, searching for (?si)^(?=.*?Potentially bad keyword in (?:title|username|body|answer)[^\n\r]*?\bfound\s*(?:verbatim|normalized|obfuscated))(?!.*?\b(?:222333444|53535353) found) in the why data, is 1513 Total / 1507 TP (99.6% TP) / 4 FP / 2 NAA.
video has 4 views; posted 52 minutes ago... 5 minutes before the post
!!/report stackoverflow.com/a/75377974/4957508 "video has 4 views; posted 52 minutes ago... 5 minutes before the post; unlikely to be an organic discovery"
@CodyGray A normalized version, {{'8449194592', '18449194592'}}, of that pattern is already on the number blacklist. You can use !!/bisect-number 1-844.919.4592 to determine which entries on the number lists match that pattern, which would tell you: Matched by 844-919-4592 on line 719 of blacklisted_numbers.txt: 8449194592 found normalized; 18449194592 found normalized
