[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with email in body, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching email in body, potentially bad ip for hostname in body, potentially bad keyword in body (232): Where can I hire a hacker by frank raya on stackoverflow.com
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title, blacklisted user (265): EVOLPICK ONLINE CASINO by Savana Lee on stackoverflow.com
@Nick That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer 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.
@JeffSchaller That pattern looks like it's already caught by Mostly non-latin answer and Mostly non-latin body Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@Mast seems like a good idea! It might stand a better chance of being remembered as an"Issue" on GitHub. Makyen's probably the best person to code it up, but there might be someone else who wants to try their hand at it.
(I need to remember to do that more often for all my "bright" ideas); it allows for a concentration of discussion around how the change should work, too.
@Cow That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword in body and Bad keyword in answer Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
Hmm. I have just seen two of these posts in the LQA review queue (presumably flagged as "link-only" NAAs). There is nether explicit disclosure nor hard evidence that poster is affiliated with the linked resource. ... But is it spam?
@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword in body and Bad keyword in answer Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@tripleee The current bad keyword is folkwin[\W_]*+expert[\W_]*+recovery(?:[\W_]*+(?:at[\W_]*+)?tech[\W_]*+center(?:[\W_]*+(?:dot[\W_]*+)?com)?)?. That will also need to be adjusted to prevent detection of the new domain.
@tripleee I needed to pull the current version prior to making such statements. Sorry about that. However, while it is updated, it's updated to prevent duplication of folkwinexpertrecovery\.com, but not the obfuscated version which you're trying to add. Do you want me to take care of it?
@Fastnlight IMO, if you have to ask yourself that question, there's a decent chance it's worthy of a mod flag for investigation. I’d say probably 2 to 4, depending on the answers.
@Fastnlight since all 3 answers are on softwarerecs.SE I suppose 3 answers (with disclosure) is ok. to me it seems answers meet site standard (at least minimal). PS.: OP has not be seen for over 2 years.
Usually (assuming the posts are disclosed, relevant to the site/question, and it's 100% of the user's posts), if the product is the answer (eg. "you can use my library to solve this: .. [writes about how to use said library]"), 3 is overly promotional to me. If the posts have actual purpose other than to promote something (eg. "[Full answer to question] ... I wrote more about this in my blog:"), then 5 is overly promotional to me. For software recs, I usually bump the first category to 4 posts.
@Fastnlight If a post fully answers the question (stands alone without the link), I'd see a link to a "readmoreabout in my blog" rather a link to a source than a promotion.
