1

See Setting text in a grid, neatly where I replaced the link with a footnote, referring to how to find the link on a different SE (where I found it).

The name of the page, being a Wiki, is taken from the page’s title.
The first character in the name triggered an error accusing me of posting spam.

I don’t appreciate the allegation. What’s wrong with that character? I would suggest that you be more intelligent than disallowing all use of a specific letter!

4
  • 7
    I would advise you re-word your meta question. Systems do make errors but telling us that we are un-intelligent can be taken the wrong way by others. – DᴀʀᴛʜVᴀᴅᴇʀ Dec 26 '16 at 23:28
  • They can dish it out (the red pop-up I saw)… – JDługosz Dec 26 '16 at 23:31
  • I'm migrating this to Meta Stackexchange as this isn't really a GD specific issue you'll get a better response there. – Ryan Dec 27 '16 at 0:02
8

The error you got hedges its bet a bit:

What the error looks like.

We aren't accusing you of spamming the site, but rather letting you know that it looks like you are spamming. That's because we've seen inordinate number of spam attempts consisting largely of Chinese characters. On a site about Chinese, such as where you found the link, we obviously can't block Chinese characters. But for most of the rest of the network it's a strong bet that people using Chinese characters are attempting to post spam.

Just to be clear, this is a pretty rotten solution. Blocking an entire block of Unicode characters isn't something we like doing. But the alternative would be to block huge swaths of IP addresses. Inasmuch as it's possible to work around the block to post legitimate content and impossible to post the payload the spammers seem interested in propagating, it's been a worthwhile tradeoff.

That said, we could probably reword the "Would you mind doing that elsewhere instead?" sentence. It's a bit presumptive when a non-spammer posts something that tangentially looks like spam. Any suggestions?

7
  • 1
    Change it to Any spammers will be exterminated – devRicher Dec 27 '16 at 1:47
  • 2
    “would you mind doing that elsewhere instead?” is accusing me of spamming and not offering any way to talk back. I found it rather insulting and presumptuous. Note that I was given that link by another SE poster and copied it from that other post. – JDługosz Dec 27 '16 at 4:37
  • 1
    «Any suggestions» well, ask on ux.se. don’t be presumptuous and condescending towards false positives. State clearly and objectively what the trigger is and link to details; don’t assume you are addressing an actual spammer. Whitelist big sites like the Chinese equivalent of wikipedia and google. Consider the rep of the poster and length of time he’s been on any se sites. Post it with review needed to show up. – JDługosz Dec 27 '16 at 4:45
  • @JDługosz But do you have any suggestions for how to reword it? – SevenSidedDie Dec 27 '16 at 4:47
  • 4
    @JDługosz: The system is making an uneducated guess. It's bound to be wrong sometimes. If it makes you feel any better, nobody actually thinks you were a spammer and there's no negative consequences to getting the error. I'm not really sure why the block was worded that way. My guess is that it was intended to be whimsical. Clearly the message failed for you and I'm sorry. – Jon Ericson Dec 27 '16 at 4:49
  • @Jon can you please remove the wrong status-completed tag from this question? Nothing was fixed, the block still exists. (I would flag, but it's pointless as my custom flags on MSE take months until someone review them.) – Shadow Wizard Wearing Mask V2 Dec 27 '16 at 9:23
  • The question that @sha links above has a complaint about a different message in the comments. i.stack.imgur.com/Mxw4E.png There's no point being whimsical to actual spammers and people that aren't spamming probably don't appreciate the tone. Why not just keep it factual? "Body cannot contain x. This is a spam prevention measure". – Martin Smith Dec 27 '16 at 9:28

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