|
Easy - upvote this and I will tell you.
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
|
|
|
|
|
You are a platinum debator with a weight factor of 8 (4 for gold, 2 for silver). Debator messages receive 3 base points upon upvotes. So an upvotee gets 24 points from you.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The options are currently "This is spam" or "This is perfectly acceptable" (paraphrased) ... Another option might be appropriate .. along the lines of "Complete and utter garbage" .. e.g . The hack is not unlocking. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE[^].
To be fair, as soon as it is allowed through it's going to get flamed as "Not a Question" etc ... but oh it hurts to flag it as "perfectly acceptable" 
|
|
|
|
|
Another nice option would be "Repeat" for when the user got impatient and posted a second copy which also is in moderation. I've seen three or four in there at times, and the only option is to let them through then find and delete the spares later. You can't "This is spam" them to get rid of them as this would kick the user, and confuse the spam detector with bad data.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Single responsibility. Spam moderation is purely spam moderation. It's not about whether it passes the community's test for appropriateness (For that we'd need the help of Watson[^] in order to mark and place into a queue those posts needing double checking)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Although I see your point, I am with @chris-maunder. Let the spam filter learn and do its job without interferences of new "criteria".
CHill60 wrote: The options are currently "This is spam" or "This is perfectly acceptable" (paraphrased)
What about "This is spam" and "This is NOT spam"?
That should do the job. Quality of the question is... another question  An it is already possible to deal with it.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
A less skilled Author send me a disturbing message to my genius comment.I want to reply to the message in more sophisticated and secure way, However I can't see it to the article comment section. Is it deleted or something happened ?
|
|
|
|
|
Sumuj John wrote: my genius comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The author replied however I can't see it in the comment section. I only got the email and the notification.
|
|
|
|
|
So maybe he deleted his message. You can still reply if you know who it was.
|
|
|
|
|
How? To my own message thread ? It was only me on the thread till for a few min except RyanDev , not the "Author" replied something.
|
|
|
|
|
I am still not quite sure what your problem is, or what the above means.
However, if you wish to send a comment to the author then post a new message on the forum. If someone sends you a private message there is nothing to stop you opening a new thread and quoting what they sent you.
|
|
|
|
|
Not I want to send a new message. He replied my message. I only want to reply his message. That all. As you said he might delete it, since he can't get away from the problem he created.
|
|
|
|
|
Then do as I suggested, it's really not that difficult. If you want to see an example, then click on the "Email" link below, and send me a message, and I will show you how to respond.
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean, send the message as "private". I'm well aware that. I commented as public since the article is public and I expect public reply. I want his another weak message reply to be public as well.
|
|
|
|
|
What you want and what you get are two different things. Everyone here is entitled to post public or private messages as the mood takes them, you cannot force people to bow to your wishes.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to make someone to bow to my wishes. I'm not god and never claimed. The security subject is too sensitive. That's all my concern.
|
|
|
|
|
You have made your feelings known about the article, and it is up to the rest of us to agree or disagree with both the article and your comments. Leave it at that, it's really not important.
|
|
|
|
|
So, another poster has added a reply which he or she has then deleted and you want to reply to them because you feel you are cleverer than they are. Why? They have removed their message. It sounds like all you want to do is humiliate someone. That's not a good thing to do.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to humiliate someone. The author feels that the article he wrote is "novel and interesting". Replying my comment doesn't change his feeling since he still claims the article is "novel and interesting".
|
|
|
|
|
You've expressed your comments, unfortunately not very politely, and at this point you should let go and move on.
Security is subjective. How you judge security often depends on context and expectations, and what you are trying to secure. Guy's put some effort in and has written a decent article. Pete gave it a 4, which I feel is fairly representative of its quality/accuracy/content.
Your opinions on the content were not shared by many others, so it would be nice if you would stop taking this personally and leave that author alone.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
