13
\$\begingroup\$

We consistently get spam of the type:

$HoityToityName has made my $verb better because he cast spell for me. E-mail example@yahoo.com to have $noun [enlarged | made better].

... Except it takes a paragraph of spam to say that.

The most recent example is (deleted) here and is completely true to form.

A post that has attracted many spam is here.

Can we set up an auto-flag system such that no-rep users who post messages of this type are auto spam binned?

\$\endgroup\$
8
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ More spam examples: Why Women Needs So Many Handbags, lots of lovely examples at How Do You Make a Wizard That Doesn't Need a Spellbook?, and in the Grease thread. \$\endgroup\$ – BESW May 28 '13 at 1:31
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm under the impression that a certain number of spam flags results in an answer being automatically deleted. If so, flagging an answer with an email address for spam would be beneficial, since it would accelerate that process for our typical spam answers. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 28 '13 at 2:59
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Yes. Basically, if it's got an e-mail addy in and the user is no-rep, all it should take is 1 spam flag to nuke it. \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton May 28 '13 at 3:36
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ +1. I was going to post a similar question with the title, "Anti-Magic Field," since these spam answers are drawn to posts that mention "spells" or "magic." \$\endgroup\$ – Jadasc May 28 '13 at 12:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ The only problem with auto-nuking spam is what happens when a misguided new user, honestly trying to answer a question posts an answer that ends up looking like a spam to the spam-killer script? \$\endgroup\$ – Pulsehead May 29 '13 at 13:50
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Pulsehead I think a feature that auto-flagged is the idea, so that it only takes one human to flag a post that the script has identified as "likely spam" to get it deleted. (Stuff can always be undeleted, as well.) Or to phrase the feature request another way, "Can the SE software lower the number of flags required on 'likely spam' posts?" \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie May 29 '13 at 16:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie Merely lowering the number of flags required is a bit different - auto-flagging would do that, but additionally it has effects like bringing the post to moderator attention immediately. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jun 2 '13 at 1:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ rpg.stackexchange.com/a/26323/1084 new one \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Jun 13 '13 at 14:54
7
\$\begingroup\$

Since this was asked, Smoke Detector (“Smokey”) has started running on SE. Smoke Detector is a bot (run by Good People™ who work closely with SE staff, and some of whom are mods) that watches Stack Exchange for exactly these kinds of things. The bot doesn't have enough reputation on Stack Exchange to auto-flag these posts, though.

However, a relatively new feature of Smokey allows users to sign up to voluntarily delegate their flagging privilege to Smoke Detector, which gives Smokey a secure token from your RPG.se account so that it can flag as if it were you on RPG.se.

There are limitations built into Smokey to prevent this delegated flagging permission from being a problem, and past accuracy is in the 99.9% range, but technically the responsibility for an account's flagging behaviour still lies with the owner of the account, not with Smokey. Obviously not everyone is going to be super-OK with a bot having that kind of permission on their account, so it's necessarily extremely voluntary. It's for those who have faith in this kind of technology and want to volunteer to help out.

To learn more about Smokey, visit the bot's homepage and the wiki page on the Autoflagging feature. You can also talk to helpful humans about Smokey and see the bot in action in the Charcoal HQ chat room.


This doesn't merit marking this feature request since Smokey is more of an external tool or workaround. Perhaps something like Smokey will be built into SE some day and this can be marked completed, planned, deferred, or somesuch.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .