[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, pattern-matching website in body, repeated URL at end of long post: natural sugar remains sugar by thomugasta on askubuntu.com (@ThomasWard)
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching website in body: be fit - I need to coach by dgdf on askubuntu.com (@HenryWHHackv2.0 @ThomasWard)
2017-07-15 17:37:36.313113 UTC
File "ws.py", line 75, in <module>
load_files()
File "/home/pi/SmokeDetector/datahandling.py", line 43, in load_files
GlobalVars.why_data_allspam = pickle.load(f, encoding='utf-8')
File "/usr/lib/python3.5/codecs.py", line 321, in decode
(result, consumed) = self._buffer_decode(data, self.errors, final)
UnicodeDecodeError: 'utf-8' codec can't decode byte 0x80 in position 0: invalid start byte
2017-07-15 17:37:45.000289 UTC
File "ws.py", line 75, in <module>
File "/usr/lib/python3.5/codecs.py", line 321, in decode
(result, consumed) = self._buffer_decode(data, self.errors, final)
KeyError: 'windowsphone.stackexchange.com'
2017-07-15 18:21:04.266034 UTC
File "/home/pi/SmokeDetector/excepthook.py", line 54, in run_with_except_hook
run_old(*args, **kw)
File "/usr/lib/python3.5/threading.py", line 862, in run
self._target(*self._args, **self._kwargs)
File "/home/pi/SmokeDetector/bodyfetcher.py", line 143, in add_to_queue
self.check_queue()
File "/home/pi/SmokeDetector/bodyfetcher.py", line 176, in make_api_call_for_site
new_posts = self.queue.pop(site)
EOFError: Ran out of input
2017-07-15 18:21:13.112229 UTC
File "ws.py", line 75, in <module>
load_files()
File "/home/pi/SmokeDetector/datahandling.py", line 77, in load_files
GlobalVars.bodyfetcher.queue_timings = pickle.load(f, encoding='utf-8')
KeyError: 'stackoverflow.com'
2017-07-15 19:03:01.609102 UTC
File "/home/pi/SmokeDetector/excepthook.py", line 54, in run_with_except_hook
@ArtOfCode I am aware of 16 code_admin. Currently in this room: ArtOfCode, NobodyNada, doppelgreener, Mithrandir, Jan Dvorak, Kyll. Not currently in this room: Ferrybig, Thomas Ward, angussidney, tripleee, ProgramFOX, Ashish Ahuja, Magisch, Andy, Undo, Glorfindel.
We (or I, at least) tend to wait until you've submitted a few PRs to show that you're a competent developer whose code doesn't need immediate critical peer-review and refactoring :P
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable
2017-07-15 20:08:02.503942 UTC
File "ws.py", line 76, in <module>
filter_auto_ignored_posts()
File "/home/pi/SmokeDetector/datahandling.py", line 84, in filter_auto_ignored_posts
for aip in GlobalVars.auto_ignored_posts:
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable
2017-07-15 21:38:47.276551 UTC
File "ws.py", line 76, in <module>
filter_auto_ignored_posts()
File "/home/pi/SmokeDetector/datahandling.py", line 84, in filter_auto_ignored_posts
The Low Quality Post Audits on Stackoverflow are getting much more difficult than before. I'm #9th overall in the review queue, and they're coming out with some really clever audits to trick people into saying the answer looks fine, but it's not fine because of some technicality. For example: stackoverflow.com/review/low-quality-posts/16723877
The question is reasonable and the answer looks reasonable, so I marked it as ok. And whamo I failed the audit. The gotcha is that even though it's reasonable, this user was answering his own question which was promoting a 3rd party library paid service. So it's a stealth advertisement that takes the form of a reasonable question and reasonable answer.
I think the issue is I just broke into the exclusive "Top 10 users" site wide for the low quality queue, and they cranked up the audit difficulty to maximum for those people. I have to spend a few minutes on each one as if this was a game of "glory to arstotzka" on hardest mode. Meaning every 5 reviews is a super stealth spam that is almost indistinguishable from good questions and good answers.
@EricLeschinski Yeah, that one is weird. Looking at timeline it appears that the answer was deleted by a mod, but I've no idea why. If it was for spamming then I would expect the question to have gone as well.
Every day I can do 20 or 40 reviews, I get 1 audit every 20 reviews. So if I get to do 40 in a day sometimes I get 2 in one session. Usually I'm great at spotting them because they are obvious. Now that I think of it, it wasn't always this way. Before I would get far fewer audits, maybe 1 in 50.
the audits seem to be pure random. so sometimes the audits are back to back, other times I can go 40 without seeing one.
I'm not banned, they just say "come back August 8 to continue reviewing" which is like 4 weeks from now. This isn't the first time I've been given a time out. I think it's like the 4th time in the last 2 years. I've been doing every day nonstop for the least 3 years.
Starting today, thanks to Oded, moderators now have a way to give extended bans from review. When manually banning a user from the mod tools, moderators will see a list of options similar to what is shown when suspending a user:
Not only can you hand out longer bans, we've also adjusted th...
I disagree with the review ban escalation past 30 days because I am doing reviews in good faith and I'd be caught in that net. Some of the audits are algorithmically generated and frankly bullshit.
The devs at stackoverflow are probably making the audits harder on purpose to flatten this curve. Most of the reviews are basically done by the top 50 people, one of them is me. My policy is to basically delete everything unless it's obviously high quality. The strategy mostly works perfectly for the last few years because audits where you need to mark it okay are obviously high quality. Recently ones we have to mark okay are dubious, and ones they want us to delete look high quality.
Get more people participating I guess. You don't want your site's functionality to just rely on 50 anonymous people. What if they all got run over by a bus? Then all reviews grind to a halt.
If you're reviewing low quality posts, I'd like you to read this. All of it. Not skim it, not just vote up/down with everyone else. In exchange, I'll keep it short. Or if you are too busy, here you go:
TL;DR: Review carefully. Don't delete everything. Deletion is for things that actually aren...
> • There is absolutely no explanation about what that code does, how it addresses the problem, or why it's the correct solution. It's not even really clear why that code is at all relevant to the question. > • Furthermore, there already exist other answers that are far superior to that one, those that actually answer the question. Keeping that poor answer around isn't going to help anyone.
When the user posts only code, I say "Code only posts are low quality and subject to deletion, there should be at least one sentence explain what this code does and what question you are addressing.
@JF In most cases, I'd say a code only answer should not be deleted:
> When you see something lacking in quality, you should downvote it, comment on it for the author to improve it, or, ideally, edit it yourself. We should only be deleting these kinds of answer when they're really bad — as in "no edit can ever fix this" kind of bad.
But that's a good point about superior answers -- if the code dump doesn't add anything at all, it's probably best to just delete it.
The image of the apples as a guide to what is high quality and to be deleted was helpful. I propose that users of the review queue be reminded with such an image: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/287563/…
Starting today, thanks to Oded, moderators now have a way to give extended bans from review. When manually banning a user from the mod tools, moderators will see a list of options similar to what is shown when suspending a user:
Not only can you hand out longer bans, we've also adjusted th...
If you're reviewing low quality posts, I'd like you to read this. All of it. Not skim it, not just vote up/down with everyone else. In exchange, I'll keep it short. Or if you are too busy, here you go:
TL;DR: Review carefully. Don't delete everything. Deletion is for things that actually aren...
