|
Yes, you can - if you know the details.
The idea of moderation is to prevent dodgy messages becoming generally visible, and the automated system does a pretty good job of detecting possible spam (which can involve a heck of a lot of factors) then passing it to a human for review and the final decision on "permit" or "destroy".
And you have accidentally triggered it's deliberate paranoia, so it is "watching you" and will continue to until enough messages have been approved by humans to appease the beast. 
Don't worry, we are normally pretty quick - but it's a Sunday in Summer so most moderators are not at work and are doing other things ("getting a life" in some cases) and that means it's a little slower than usual.
And you'll be away from moderation soon.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Example mail address: xyz@xyz_this.org
That address will not be accepted because of the underline. I think this is a bug?
modified 4-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Underscores are not permitted in email domain names:
The domain name part of an email address has to conform to strict guidelines: it must match the requirements for a hostname, a list of dot-separated DNS labels, each label being limited to a length of 63 characters and consisting of:
- uppercase and lowercase Latin letters A to Z and a to z;
- digits 0 to 9, provided that top-level domain names are not all-numeric;
- hyphen
-, provided that it is not the first or last character.
This rule is known as the LDH rule (letters, digits, hyphen). In addition, the domain may be an IP address literal, surrounded by square brackets [], such as jsmith@[192.168.2.1] or jsmith@[IPv6:2001:db8::1], although this is rarely seen except in email spam.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I got an email saying someone replied to my message, but when I went to reply I couldn't because the message was still under moderation.
If it was spam I don't want to see it at all, if it isn't spam I want to be able to reply.
So it would make sense to not send an email until the message is approved.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a similar issue with Chris' excellent "5 second rule". (I don't think the timeout is that short, but that's what he called it a few years ago.)
If you post a reply, then edit it soon enough, the edit doesn't show as such.
The issue is that the original reply was emailed to whoever you're replying to, but the edited version shows in the forum.
This has tripped me up a few times when I corrected typos in my answers.
Of course, knowing how this works opens up an opportunity for malice.
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that between the time a message was posted, and was not auto-flagged as SPAM, it may have been flagged as SPAM by one of the moderators.
Even if it is auto-flagged as SPAM and set to moderation, most of the emails need to be sent as this is how some of our moderations get notified of new messages that they might want to check.
I'm going to think through the logic on this before making changes.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Dennis wrote: it may have been flagged as SPAM by one of the moderators.
Not in my case, unless you have lightning fast moderators.
Matthew Dennis wrote: as this is how some of our moderations get notified of new messages
You could send it to moderators only?
Message gets posted -> Spam filter turns out positive -> Email moderators -> Moderators approve -> Email OP
Message gets posted -> Spam filter turns out negative -> Email OP
Unless the spam filter isn't something you can get between, like if the flow was async, like so:
Message gets posted -> Email OP
_______________________ -> Spam filter turns out positive/negative ...
|
|
|
|
|
 Brain failure has occurred: I hit the "report"flag on my comment rather than the comment I replied to: Comments by Kathryn Fix[^] And it was accepted.
I know you can't upvote your own stuff, but it seems strange that you can report yourself for spamming / trolling ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like your report has been removed.
I've de-activated my own account before. I'm just waiting for the day when I "forget" my own account.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Don't you just hate days like that? 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
When a question is answered at Q&A it seems that the update information for the question is updated event though the question itself is not updated.
What I mean is that in the end of the question you see when the question was posted, when was it updated and a link to revision history. For example
Posted 40 mins ago Updated 5 mins ago v2
It seems that the updated info is modified based on the solution, not that the question was updated.
Could it be possible to separate these
Question posted 40 mins ago, Question updated 25 mins ago v2, Solutions updated 5 mins ago
|
|
|
|
|
What if we just said "thread updated x mins ago"?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
That would prevent the misunderstanding. However, personally I often come back later to questions that need clarification so from the answering point of view it would be nice to know if the question itself has been updated recently. In other words, is there some new info on it.
So I would be totally happy if the updated at time would take only updates to the question itself into account 
|
|
|
|
|
Dear CP support,
i want to ask you to delete my account. There is nothing wrong with your site, i just dont use this account anymore.
Thanks in advance.
modified 26-Sep-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
See the reply to the question below, titled "Account deletion".
|
|
|
|
|
@Dave-Kreskowiak
example: [^]
original title: Convert java to C# code
title after editing: This is not a code conversion service
I think it's fine if the title is re-edited for clarity, or corrected for misspellings, or grammar.
But, we have comments, reporting, and down-voting, with which to express opinions, or objections.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
The reason we change the title is to try and prevent other people posting their code as a Solution, in the hope that it will be converted.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: try and prevent other people posting their code as a Solution
I respectfully take exception with the idea this method is optimal, or beneficial to CP in the long run. I think re-titling may give offense, unnecessarily.
If this method is used, it allows one CP member to turn the question into a giant billboard for their opinion ... to me, that seems to contradict the pro-social "ethos" of CP QA.
There may be a chance, that, with a little feedback, the OP might come back with an acceptable version of their question.
A little wiggle-room before the OP is sent into outer darkness ? 
cheers, Bill
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I respectfully take exception with the idea this method is optimal, or beneficial to CP in the long run
I made no such claim, I merely explained why it has been done in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Richard, I apologize if I misconstrued your words. When I read them, I perceived the "neutral tone," and the use of the pronoun "we," to indicate you endorsed this method.
If you care to comment on whether you think this practice is a good thing, or a suboptimal, but necessary, expedient, I am all ears 
To slightly misuse a medical trope, I believe "primum non nocere" is salient here: "first do no harm."
cheers, Bill
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Bill, no apology necessary, all comments and opinions (especially yours) are welcome.
I am not sure when or who started doing this but it seemed like a reasonable idea to me, so I joined in. Part of the problem with QA some days is trying to sort the wheat from the chaff, in order to answer what we might term "genuine" questions, rather than "do my work" types.
Perhaps, if as suggested, we just use the voting buttons (consistently) it will keep everyone happy. Although maybe not those who post such questions.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I think re-titling may give offense, unnecessarily.
Offense to whom?
BillWoodruff wrote: allows one CP member to turn the question into a giant billboard for their opinion
What's stopping anyone from turning ANY post into their own opinion? I think your comment means you're looking for CP to police any changes we make instead of the current honor system it relies on.
BillWoodruff wrote: There may be a chance, that, with a little feedback, the OP might come back with an acceptable version of their question.
The question titles that are getting changed are not recent questions. They're years old questions being used by people who Google for "Convert this to that".
BillWoodruff wrote: A little wiggle-room before the OP is sent into outer darkness ?
You're making the assumption these are new QA posts. I don't touch the new posts, only the old ones.
|
|
|
|
|
You can say that in a comment and as an answer.
You can edit the question and add that in the first line as a disclaimer...
You can report it as "not a question" and make it dissapear...
There are options to deal with it.
I agree with Bill in this one, that changing the title and leaving it is not the best option we can use.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: You can say that in a comment and as an answer.
You can edit the question and add that in the first line as a disclaimer...
You can report it as "not a question" and make it dissapear...
Yes, we do all these things, but people still resurrect old questions and dump code as solutions, expecting it to be converted.
|
|
|
|
|
It takes only three or so "Not a question" reports to remove the question. Taken how active people we have, this should not be a problem.
I agree that changing the title does no good and does not prevent resurrecting old questions so the key thing would be to properly use the reporting ability. Perhaps utilizing S&A without reporting the account...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
