|
Think about it. How does the filter know if the message is appropriate or inappropriate? It just applies rules. This has all been well explained in other posts. It may pay to go over them.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
"Think about it". Why me, let the owner figure it out about the bug.
modified 12-Jan-17 17:55pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 12682271 wrote: Why me, let the owner figure it out about the bug.
It isn't a bug.
It's a feature. It's designed to prevent (or at least reduce) the amount of inappropriate posts we get - to let you read the site a whole lot more easily. Unfortunately, your posts pressed all the right buttons for the automated system and it sent you to moderation so that a human being could decide if the message should be allowed through, or your account crushed like a bug. That takes a little time - not much, generally - because all the moderators are volunteers, most of us with paying work to do and that means it can take minutes to get a message approved.
Have a little patience! It doesn't take long, and it isn't anything personal - it's an automatic system doing it's best to prevent you from being flooded with rubbish!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Hum,the retarded automated filter will be monitored by the unretard human moderator.
The retarded automated filter should be refined more so that the unretard human moderator won't have intervention on the messages. This reduce conflict of interest when/how the messaged will be released by the unretarded moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
How?
No seriously, how?
This is a tech site, with a lot of questions and answers that require legitimate links and terms which often trigger detectors - things that social networking, or golfing sites don't have to worry about. The low incidence of "false positives" given the material posted is pretty good - but that's why it's a moderated system: if we gave the Ban Hammer to the automated system it would make our lives easier, yes. But then people like you would be kicked off for no good reason, which we all want to avoid.
The spam detector is heuristic: it learns from what we reject, and what we accept - so the chances are that less of your posts will be sent to moderation in the future. In fact, none of your messages in this forum have been moderated as far as I know - and this forum is not excepted from the detection - so it seems to have caught on that you aren't that much of a threat already...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did.
About 6 hours ago...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I did it About 6 hours ago.
Huh, About what? I replied a couple of hours ago to one of member who replied to my message.
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, I'll take you being mildly inconvenienced over the absolute crapstorm we used to see with spammers flooding the lounge with a couple of hundred spam posts a minute. We had the situation where spammers were creating multiple accounts and posting multiple messages per account. Now, it takes 10 votes to remove a spammer. It also takes someone some small amount of time to post a link to the spammer - and to vote to remove each spam message in the forums. That's our time that's being wasted. Now contrast this with the fact that if the flood of messages is caught in the spam filter, we only have to create the report to the user - and we can mass reject the spam with a one click operation. You can possibly see why we, the people who actually have to deal with the deluge of crap, much prefer the system that makes our lives that little bit easier.
Tell you what. Why don't you come up with a better spam handler if you think it's that easy? I'm sure that Chris and the team will be more than happy to use it if you can avoid these false negatives.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Why don't you come up with a better spam handler if you think it's that easy?
Ah, the sound of crickets chirping. 
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Why don't you come up with a better spam handler
You seriously able to pay me for that solution. But the quickies and simple solution would be :
Instead of marking the entire message title/content as "Message Removed", display the title/content but disable any suspicious links and explicit contents from the message. This action should only happen for few min or second and then any "unretard mentor" or human may come and enable/disable, remove the links even delete the message.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 12682271 wrote: disable any suspicious links and explicit contents
I'm curious as to how one would automatically detect suspicious links and explicit content. And if we could detect messages with suspicious links and explicit content, why wouldn't we simply quarantine it as a whole for a few minutes?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: suspicious links and explicit content
if the auto filter thinks the posted content has those suspicious or explicit content(it might not be) then do the solution that I provided instead of marking and displaying "Message Removed". If its really is suspicious or explicit then remove or quarantine it.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 12682271 wrote: If its really is suspicious or explicit then remove or quarantine it
We do quarantine it. It goes into moderation. I've also updated the message that's displayed on moderated posts to say "Message in moderation" to make it clearer.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
There is no public documentation of how the filter works to avoid being fooled by spammers.
But in this case it is obvious: Your message contains a link and not much more (while being perfectly valid).
It happened to me too in the past. It is better to wait a short time until a message is live rather than having a lot of spam.
Before the filter was introduced, there were spam runs with more than 100 messages in a few minutes hiding all valid messages.
And yes, it would be better to have a different subject like "Waiting for approval" as already suggested. But that is not up to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I kicked the aggregator to pull your feed, it said "Error." When I tried looking at your feed page Chrome had a lot of trouble loading it. There might be an issue there.
Looking at your feed, did you change any settings there? I notice that the full text isn't in the <description> tag. Has it always been that way?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
We have moved the site to different hosting and changed it to https but nothing else regarding the RSS. My email marketing depends on the RSS too, and it is working as expected. Can I do something else to assist you in fixing the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to put the full content of a single post (preferably a longer one) into the description tag? And give it a rel-tag too? Or at least, temporarily change it so that the full blog entries are in the description tags and then I'll try pulling it again?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean,
Can you try to pull it again?
I found that the only change that was made was that last 300 items were returned. I now have changed this number to 50 so that the RSS could be loaded much faster. Maybe this was the problem? Since I don't think that before the full content was displayed in description tags. I use Wordpress, and the RSS is automatically generated, and I don't have control over it.
Thanks,
Anton
|
|
|
|
|
Still an error. Can you try reducing it to less than 50? Think really small. Like 5.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
I have just change it to 5. Is the problem still there?
|
|
|
|
|
The feed is still showing a lot of entries to me. It loads all entries up to April 22, 2014.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it was some caching issue. I have just deleted the whole site's cache. The last item showed in my browser was published on Sat, 03 Dec 2016 14:21:44 +0000. I have also tested in incognito mode so there shouldn't be a reason to show more items at your end. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
