@CalvT the issue with this post is that the username is detected when it should not be. It's not that the post content is detected. The way to handle that issue is to give fpu feedback in chat, or issue a !!/addwlu [URL for user profile] command. It's not the post that needs to be ignored. It is the user that needs to be added to the username whitelist.
What do you figure for this post, and the user who posted it? The post is recommending a (partially) paid software that's different from the platform OP was asking about.
This user has made these kinds of posts several times, enough for me to do extra research. I found out they are currently an intern at the company making the software being recommended. I mod-flagged the linked post and commented on it. Is this activity enough to warrant being put in MS?
> Url in title, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, bad keyword in username, pattern-matching website in body, pattern-matching website in title ---------- Bad keyword in body - Position 11-17: rsgold Bad keyword in title - Position 11-17: rsgold Bad keyword in username - Position 11-17: rsgold Pattern-matching website in body - Position 11-25: rsgoldmall.com Pattern-matching website in title - Position 11-25: rsgoldmall.com Url in title - Position 0-25: http://www.rsgoldmall.com
So for a strongly-weighted tp like this last one, do we even need to bother watching the contact info listed in the post's body? Since they tripped so many other watchwords
@SmokeDetector Every single one of this user's answers links to their own libraries on GitHub, or provides code which utilizes them. No affiliation was disclosed.
@Das_Geek @double-beep SmokeDetector is a very blunt stick to be hitting posts with. If the user is providing good quality content, then it's much better to try to convince the user to edit their posts to provide disclosure and/or to get them to stop over-promoting. This is going to be a judgement call. For me, what to do will largely depend on if I think the user is here to promote or give good answers (even if those answers are about things they are involved with).
What I normally do is leave a comment with links to the various Metas and the help center which talk about disclosure and over-promotion and ask them to edit in disclosure. Then I give the OP some time, often days to respond and edit. How long I give them depends on how active the user is. If the content is good, sometimes I'll just edit in the required disclosure.
If the user appears to be over-promoting in a way that doesn't give good content to SO, then I'll often raise a custom mod-flag. If the user refuses to add in disclosure, then I'll usually custom mod-flag.
Basically, reporting to SD should be used when you think that the post(s) should be red-flagged and immediately removed. It generally isn't a good idea to report multiple posts where a more nuanced approach is beneficial, because reports to SD tend to hit things with big spam/R/A stick, which often isn't appropriate for cases where the user is providing good content.
Reporting also effectively forces moderators to take immediate action, rather than allowing them room to take some time to educate the user.
To be clear, the above assumes the user is providing content that is generally good and helpful for the community (e.g. answers question, actually explains solutions, and isn't just "use my/our thing"). Obviously, if they are just promoting, then report to SD and red-flag.
@Jenayah We could add a check. You're right that it's not something that comes up all that often. Also, it's not clear that we really want the checks disabled on a suspended user's content, as they might have made posts or edits prior to the suspension which should be looked at. While I'd expect moderators to look at anything recent, it's also possible that they missed something.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad asn for hostname in body, potentially problematic ns configuration in body (2): Django category view by Octavian on stackoverflow.com
@Makyen Yeah, I commented on their post, gave them four hours (I think, maybe six), then after seeing no changes I mod-flagged.
I chose that length of time because they had been active over the last few days. I chose to flag because every single one of their answers referenced the libraries they had developed, but "only" mod-flagged since some of their answers appeared somewhat helpful.
