|
crudeCodeYogi wrote: I can see news for 16-Oct
go fast to the lottery or sport winners and tell me 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
When I'm reporting spammers in the spam forum, please don't mark my post as spam. Honestly, the number of messages I have had lately that are getting flagged as spam - the spam detection system is doing a very poor job.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry mate.
Can you point me to a message of yours being marked?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for chuckling ... but I just passed this through the spam moderation check 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm truly not sure what to do in this situation.
Your message was basically: 4 high probability keywords (some repeated) in the title + 4 URLs.
The spam filter took one look and went off its nut.
Options are:
- Remove those keywords from the filter. Not really an option, really.
- Not run the spam filter when it's you posting. This is the easiest, but we have had high(er) rep members post spam. Maybe we start with a "Anyone over 10K rep" or something gets excused.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
If I post spam, I promise to report the message as spam.
|
|
|
|
|
Only if you promise.
(FWIW I've made the spam filter more tolerant of Gentleman Of High Esteem And Honesty such as yourself)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest, I've had messages pended for less "spammy" content when reporting other spam, but I'd rather have a message of mine pended than some so-and-so's real stuff sneaking through. At the end of the day, it's only a short delay (hmm...didn't mean that to rhyme)
We had a real hit at the weekend again ... In those circumstances I'm happy to wait (and go into moderation and clear my own message  )
I've (others have too) stopped putting the the gist of the spam in the report to avoid the situation ... if it's ended up in moderation and someone goes to the effort of reporting it as well then ... it's spam! No need to repeat the stuff they've (the spammer) has posted.
Maybe some guidance in the sticky post?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHill60 wrote: No need to repeat the stuff they've (the spammer) has posted
Last time were some complaints about "blind trusting" our reports.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes, I remember. However if we make it clear it's from moderation ... actually no, there will still be non-trusters
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe different spam filtering (none?) for the Span and Abuse Watch forum?
It seems pretty likely that the spam keywords and URLs would appear in postings in this forum.
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
Disabling spam filtering on that forum would invite spam.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Which is why I initially stated "different".
Maybe just different "thresholds" of the conditions...
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry - I thought you meant on/off.
Even a different threshold wouldn't really work if someone posts a message heavy in spam keywords. Fine tuning it would be extremely difficult.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
No matter what is done it could be abused.
It could be different thresholds for higher reputation folks.
They're the most likely to be reporting spam anyway.
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, but my point is that if a spam post has a likelihood of 90% being spam, then a high-rep member's post using the same keywords in the title may be 90% too. Or 89% or 91%. Depends on what they post. So do we set the high-rep members at 95% required? 99%? It's hard to tell without lots of trial and error, and there will always be exceptions.
So: I'm just turning off spam checking for certain types of members.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: So: I'm just turning off spam checking for certain types of members
I interested on the technical level how you went about it. Is it hard coded to specific member or based on the rep points?
If the system is learning based on the message content posed by members?
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
We tend to use a D20[^]
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
How about an auto-report in S&A forum, generated from someone clicking the appropriate link whilst reviewing the moderation queue - presumably that would by-pass the filters?
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed the title for you. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Sir, I have posted some solutions for several questions and my answer has also up-voted but my reputation points does not increase.Can you please help me with this.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
