Timeline for answer to Stack Overflow now uses machine learning to flag spam automatically by starball
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 15 at 7:11 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | OTOH, the binding flags would be more acceptable if they were all put into a verification queue for mods (& maybe veteran flaggers) to review, so that any mistakes can be swiftly rectified. (And perhaps don't apply the -100 penalty to them until after they've been reviewed, although most spammers have virtually no rep, so that penalty is meaningless to them, anyway). | |
| Jan 15 at 7:11 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | @Spevacus I'm also a bit uncomfortable about the binding flags, even if the number of false positives in your sample is really only 1 or 2 rather than the 7 or 8 that were originally identified. I much prefer the Charcoal system, where at least 1 flag must be cast manually. | |
| Jan 15 at 2:37 | comment | added | Starship | @starball What would you think of a mod who deleted good posts as spam 1% of the time? Why should this system be treated differently? | |
| Jan 15 at 1:48 | history | edited | starballMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 260 characters in body
|
| Jan 15 at 1:42 | comment | added | starball Mod | @Spevacus thanks. ultimately, I recognize it's up to you (the company) what you want to do. but you sought my feedback so you received :D if you decide to enable the binding flags, I'm impressed enough with the accuracy that I wouldn't be too bothered by it. | |
| Jan 15 at 0:20 | comment | added | Spevacus StaffMod | I'm glad you're impressed! I'm pushing back a bit on only letting it use non-binding flags at first because I do think it'll do a great job out of the box, however if a majority opinion feels like doing that for a given time period to gauge trust, I'll bring it to the team and we can propose a trial period. | |
| Jan 15 at 0:16 | comment | added | Dharman Mod | I agree that letting it cast only non-binding flags is better. A moderator can then decide what to do with and there's transparency. | |
| Jan 15 at 0:13 | comment | added | Dharman Mod | As a mod, I would probably mark both of them as helpful. | |
| Jan 14 at 23:35 | comment | added | Tsyvarev | Whether the answer 79853510/11107541 is spam or not, I find its deletion perfectly correct: solely "I wrote program" answers none question. So, would binding auto-spam flag" do not cost -100 rep penalty for OP, I won't treat that case as false positive one. As for the answer 79856910/11107541, it looks like LLM-generated for me. I am not good in such detection, but if my guess is correct, then I wouldn't treat that case as false positive one either. | |
| Jan 14 at 22:37 | history | edited | starballMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
whoops
|
| Jan 14 at 22:32 | history | edited | starballMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
whoops
|
| Jan 14 at 22:21 | history | edited | SpevacusStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I listed only 7 ;)
|
| Jan 14 at 22:14 | history | answered | starballMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |