Timeline for Possible false positive spam detection. Support and tips solicited
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Jun 21, 2016 at 15:50 | vote | accept | Anish Majumder | ||
| Jun 21, 2016 at 15:50 | vote | accept | Anish Majumder | ||
| Jun 21, 2016 at 15:50 | |||||
| Jun 7, 2016 at 17:45 | comment | added | bwDraco | In all my years of fighting spam here, there is absolutely no reason for me to believe that this is spam. This is clearly a false positive, and it shows that automated spam detection systems are not foolproof. | |
| Jun 5, 2016 at 23:25 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | My guess is new user + links. I would never have flagged this as spam, manually | |
| Jun 5, 2016 at 21:37 | answer | added | ArtOfCode | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jun 5, 2016 at 19:01 | comment | added | Anish Majumder | @DavidPostill Thanks! Ramhound True. There's actually not much to go on. These kinds of things often need you to physically be there to detect what's wrong. | |
| Jun 5, 2016 at 19:01 | answer | added | Ben N | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 5, 2016 at 18:58 | comment | added | Ramhound | First let me point out, part of the problem, is the question itself isn't that great. It ended up being a simple hardware problem. Most of the answers are to put it politely, wild guesses. | |
| Jun 5, 2016 at 18:57 | comment | added | DavidPostill Mod | 1/ I don't see anything spammy in your answer. I was able to paste it into your answer, so I've done that. 2/ Don't know 3/ It looks fine to me. | |
| Jun 5, 2016 at 18:50 | history | asked | Anish Majumder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |