I have a question about my Super User post: My TV is not detected when I connect to my laptop through Thunderbolt/HDMI cable

My original answer to this question was http://pastebin.com/WGJbmwhQ. I could not actually submit it as it was detected as spam. I shortened my answer and made do with linking to the pastebin post in the end.

What I want to know is:

  1. Was my original answer actually spammy or was it a false positive?
  2. What should I avoid putting in my answer so that it does not trigger the spam filters?
  3. Am I being too wordy and should I provide so many alternative options?

Thanks in advance!

  • 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.
    – DavidPostill Mod
    Commented Jun 5, 2016 at 18:57
  • 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.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Jun 5, 2016 at 18:58
  • @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. Commented Jun 5, 2016 at 19:01
  • My guess is new user + links. I would never have flagged this as spam, manually
    – Journeyman Geek Mod
    Commented Jun 5, 2016 at 23:25
  • 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.
    – bwDraco
    Commented Jun 7, 2016 at 17:45

2 Answers 2


The full details of the (internal) spam protection system on SE aren't disclosed to us, so that the system is harder to circumvent. I can't, therefore, say with complete certainty how the system processed your post, or what triggered it to flag your answer as spam.

That said, I think it was a false positive. I help run the SmokeDetector project, detecting spam that does get posted on the sites, and your post has none of the characteristics we commonly see in spam (nor did the detector pick it up). The only thing I can think of that might trigger a spam blocking system is the link - but even that shouldn't have been a problem.

Keep posting quality answers like that one, and you'll earn some reputation for yourself. Higher reputation users are less susceptible to the spam blocking system.

  • 1
    Can attest to this. I've contributed spam patterns to SmokeDetector and see no reason to believe that the post is spam.
    – bwDraco
    Commented Jun 7, 2016 at 17:43
  • Thanks, ArtOfCode and bwDraco for your nice words! Commented Jun 21, 2016 at 15:49

Your answer looked fine to me. I think it was a false positive. The only thing I would adjust (and it's very small) is the uses of > as an arrow. Generally, ordered lists are better for sequences of steps. When I need to do an in-paragraph sequence, I like to use the → entity, which becomes .

Finally, detail in answers is good! Providing alternative options is always acceptable.

It looks like DavidPostill has edited the intended contents of your answer into it, so everything's worked out now.

  • Thanks for the suggestion, Ben. That is actually a good idea. Commented Jun 5, 2016 at 19:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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