1:19 PM
0

I'm trying not to be offended, I know how spam filters work and sometimes someone gets wrongly accused and it just happens to be me. I'm just a little frustrated because I carefully craft this question for over an hour, then I get "this looks like spam" with absolutely no suggestion to make it lo...

At least to help you with this specific case it would be probably useful to see the source of the post. Does the system allow you to add it to this question? If not, could you share it somewhere online (like pastebin or something similar)? — Martin Sleziak 8 mins ago
@MartinSleziak should have thought of this myself @_@ — S.Koch 6 mins ago
@MartinSleziak Also added pastebin variant. Surprisingly, I triggered their spam detection, too. — S.Koch 4 mins ago
It is strange that I was able to post exactly the same question on Mathematics without any problem. (I have immediately deleted it - I have done this just as a test. I will add a link but it will work only for 10k+ users.) The only constructive suggestion I have is to post a part of the question and add rest in the edits (or other users might help you with editing). However, I am not sure whether this is going to work. — Martin Sleziak 1 min ago
Maybe we could continue this discussion (about experiments with the post) in chat: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/9369/2017/12/7 (Just in order not to leave too many comments here.) — Martin Sleziak 59 secs ago
Generally spam filters are more forgiving to "more established users". If you have another question, shorter, with perhaps less math to it, it might be worth trying to post it first, get some good reactions, and then try to post this one. — Asaf Karagila 33 secs ago

hi there

Hi!
Do you think that suggestion with posting a part of the question and gradually editing it might have a chance?
If needed, I can help with the edits. (Assuming that spam filter might prevent user with lower rep from editing, but still allows it to user with somewhat higher reputation.)
Just to make sure - you want to post this on MathOverflow rather than Mathematics, right? (I have noticed that you have a bit higher reputation on Mathematics site.)

1:44 PM
Now I have noticed that you have already mentioned this possibility in your post:
> I could just shorten the question by leaving parts out and just edit them in again, but that seems cheap and is possibly unwanted.

2:09 PM
yeah, I thought MO is for research level questions
this is one, imo
on the other hand "posting other MO questions first" is basically not possible, because I have nothing else I would name research level
and I want to respect the rules, so no spamming with simple questions that belong on mathematics
I will try the edit way then

I will just confirm than when I tried to post as a guest (while not logged in) here on MO, I got the same error:
0

J.Conway wrote in his book "On numbers and games" (1st edition, 1976) on p. 66 It seems to us, however, that mathematics has now reached the stage where formalization within some particular axiomatic set theory is irrelevant, even for foundational studies. I happen to disagree. In fact, I'm...

@S.Koch The post is now complete right. (At least is seems to me when I quickly compare the text in the post on meta and on the main.)
Let's hope somebody posts some reasonable suggestion on meta how to avoid the same problem in the future. And good luck with your question!
0

By trimming the question down to half (until example with $\frac{1}{\beta-\alpha}$) I could post it and then edit it to full length without problem. The comments to my question indicated that this is legal behaviour here. I'm still wondering if it is a bad sign that the spam detector can be trick...

thank you very much :)

Actually, I wasn't really that much help. Basically you finally did what you originally suggested (the "cheap and possibly unwanted" way).
But I am glad it worked.
It has at least one positive side-effect - since your question is mentioned on meta, it is quite likely that more people will notice it.
@S.Koch It seems that some parts were bold in the post on meta but on the main - I guess you have intended them to be in bold, so I've edited. (And I have also added some Google Books links.)
I hope this is ok. (But if not, feel free to rollback or edit further.)

2:27 PM
No, must accidentally posted the version without highlighting. But the book-link is great, thanks
I'm off then