[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, link at end of body, link following arrow in body, +2 more: TreVulan ZA TreVulan ZA by kallai on askubuntu.com
tpu- by doppelgreener
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, +2 more: Santege Male Enhancement by Dekro Peri on meta.SE
@Federico that's probably not scalable, but we could look into watching a number of fuel keywords, or increase the weight of these posts if there is a pattern in them (I believe there is, but I haven't pulled them up next to each other and looked properly)
"fob rotterdam" has also 30/30, mostly duplicates of the neftegaz ones, but returns some with emails not fitting in that pattern, such as metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/129791
@tripleee That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching website in answer, Pattern-matching website in body, Blacklisted website in answer, and Blacklisted website in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad ns for domain in body, bad keyword in link text in body, potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in title: Chandigarh escort service by Neha suri on meta.SE
I think it's only happening on last flags - probably as someone said recently because the page redirect kills the js. When it stays alive a second or two it mostly seems ok.
apple- by itself as a bad keyword? That feels a bit too generic. If it was restricted to being part of a link, that might be a bit more reasonable. Hmmm… looks like a / is required to proceed that & it's 93.6% on MS.
we have a ticket open about that, it fetches the HTML instead of the raw markdown
@EriktheOutgolfer nope, the regex gets interpolated into a place where it is preceded by \b and if you put the slash there it won't work in places where the slash isn't preceded by a word
though I guess the hits we have so far all have a word before the slash
thanks. Not sure whether that will turn up more, for now it seems like it might be only NAAs, but I got nuked something on CodeReview that looked exactly like this NAA
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching product name in body, pattern-matching product name in title, pattern-matching website in body, +1 more: Max Muscle Xtreme Trial Reviews by mujhesochk on stackoverflow.com
@JF That should be able to be improved. I normally use the desktop version of the site even on mobile, so hadn't noticed it was that bad. However, I had been intending to make it more responsive for other reasons (too small in larger windows). I'd expect to work on both at the same time.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, link at end of body, pattern-matching product name in body, pattern-matching website in body, +3 more: keto x factor reviews by Amelia Henry on meta.SE
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword in body, Bad keyword in answer, Pattern-matching website in body, and Pattern-matching website in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@EriktheOutgolfer That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@EriktheOutgolfer IMO, in this instance, given the question and the other answers, it does, or, at a minimum, demonstrates a significant gender insensitivity. The question is asking how much strength is needed to control the plane. There is a significant difference in average strength between males and females. Other answers do bring this up. While there may not have been an intended negative connotation towards women, I can certainly see it being read that way.
@Makyen that's not really the point; more like how do I handle repairable-level rudeness that can't be edited into a valid answers, since there seem to be differing opinions
but how do we handle the case of repairable NAAs (NAAs got to be NAAs regardless of how much you edit while not making your edit appropriate for rejection)
like, if I post something like "that plane is f****** awesome dude, what the f***!", it can definitely be repaired into "that plane's awesomeness is really breathtaking!", but is the new version an answer?
@EriktheOutgolfer If the rudeness can be (easily) edited out to make a valid question or answer, then we do that, and give fp feedback. If the post is NAA and would be NAA with the rudeness edited out, or a question which doesn't appear to be attempting to be a valid question (beyond the run of the mill too broad, opinion based, etc.) then it comes down to a judgement call, as I don't believe there are clear guidelines. If feeling generous, then answers can go with NAA and questions FP.
To me it largely depends on what the rudeness is. My personal judgement tends to be that for things which are rude towards people I lean further in the direction of R/A. If the person is just using the offensive words in a manner which is providing emphasis, then I normally tend towards NAA/FP. For the specific example you've given, I'd go with NAA.
@EriktheOutgolfer In the appropriate context they can be useful. It largely depends on context, particularly the audience. In a professional environment, as SE is intended to be, it's rarely appropriate.
however, when is rudeness towards people bad enough? a valid answer which is rude towards others still contains an answer, so, assuming it's not a dupe, should it be edited (and the user warned or suspended) or deleted?
Beyond editing out the rudeness and, if you choose, a polite comment reminding the user of the "be nice" policy and CoC, anything further falls squarely on site moderators. You can flag to bring it to their attention. If it's something that you feel should be handled with something more/other than a red-flag delete, then you can use a custom mod-flag and explain the situation.
