Tavern on the Meta

8:45 AM

flag-pls spam kitchen equipment (SD report) webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/162496

8:57 AM

@tripleee flagged

@cairdcoinheringaahing LOL, that's a good one. I guess many people you know have/had it? Hope they're all fine! :)

I thought I had COVID once, a while ago, but tested negative. Wife and kids also still never had it. knock on wood

9:33 AM

@Luuklag Cleaning up your comment here... I'll blame a case of 'bad Monday' or me misunderstanding your point, but yeah... general questions can certainly be asked based on a specific experience, and most often those experiences are the OPs own, so why shouldn't they make clear in their post that they don't want to specifically discuss their own experience but the general guidelines?

caird coinheringaahing

@ShadowWizardHatesOmicron Yeah, it's been pretty big here :/ I managed to get it over Christmas, was fine tho, just a cough

I can't imagine having not had it (at least asymptomatically) two years in. Not with how the people around me have acted at times...

@cairdcoinheringaahing good, so it was most likely Omicron indeed, it's known for being less aggressive, luckily.

@Tinkeringbell yeah, might have gotten it without even knowing, over the years.

9:52 AM

@Tinkeringbell I felt this whole post was about their own post, where their highly upvoted answer was deleted, and they kinda made an general thing about it. But really it was an attempt to have their post undeleted.

Hmm. Well, you also mentioned reputation loss as the motivation for it and well... the post was older than 60 days and had a score of more than 3, which means OP hasn't lost any reputation because you get to keep it if such posts are deleted.

Doesn't mean it's *not* an attempt to get the specific question undeleted... but I think people asking for more context/specifics hasn't really helped here, and there isn't really an ulterior motive for undeleting then, other than perhaps 'I want to be able to collect more upvotes in the future' ;)

Oh well, time will tell where this goes.

We'll see. But... next time, try not 'accuse' people of having a motive that's not even possible to have, with the system the way it is? :)

accusing Tink of having a motive to turn dust into gold

10:19 AM

Heh, wish I could! Plenty of dust here :D

10:45 AM

Wow. Philippe tagging things as status-review: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/298497/…

Oh, he's still alive! :D

11:21 AM

^ returning spammer

the car spam is still up, any new flaggers around?

Added mine, but still more needed.

11:49 AM

finally gone now, thanks

SPArcheon

12:12 PM

Was Marc a staff member at any point?

Marc Gravell, Forest of Dean, United Kingdom

92k 19 221 375

^ this one.

found a comment that looks like he used to work at Stack, but I see no staff indication on the profile.

discussion stack-exchange-team thanks

Think so, yes.

Q: Thank you, Marc Gravell!

Today, valued associate #6 Marc Gravell announced he's leaving the company: Excited, scared, happysad. The end of a personal era; after over 11 years (https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/06/09/welcome-stack-overflow-valued-associates-00006-and-00007/), this is my last week at Stack Overflow (entirel...

If my Twitter is correct, he moved to Microsoft too.

SPArcheon

1:02 PM

@Tinkeringbell ok, so this comment was official back then.

This is definitely on our list of things to do; we were mainly waiting on the code to stabilize before integrating it — Marc Gravell Mar 25 '13 at 16:34

Back when, sure.

1:33 PM

^ prostitutes, returning spammer

caird coinheringaahing

@tripleee Ignoring Smokey in here means that this looks like a very random message :P

@cairdcoinheringaahing m.erwaysoftware.com/posts/uid/drupal/309346

@cairdcoinheringaahing thanks, I'll try to behave (-:

1:50 PM

That smokey post already had 3 FP's on it when I looked. Did it already have that when reposted here?

@Luuklag I guess so: metasmoke.erwaysoftware.com/post/345658/feedback/clear

@Glorfindel it is borderline, perhaps 2 fp's and a third arrived about the same time it posted here

Are there any rules for smokey not to post obvious FP's here?

@Luuklag how can it know in advance what's an obvious FP?

If it can detect such thing it make sense it should not be posted, yeah. (but no rule that I know of.)

2:06 PM

@ShadowWizardHatesOmicron No, I mean Smokey has a 5 min delay before posting stuff here. It doesn't post stuff that is already deleted. I wonder if there is a same exeption for stuff that has already has a certain amount of FP feedback.

@Tinkeringbell feels to me personally like a waste... in such a big company, his talent won't be used to its full potential like it can be used in smaller places e.g. Stack Overflow. But if that's what he really wants... I'm happy for him. :)

@Luuklag sounds like a good idea, but it's been too long since I looked into Smokey's code. You'd have to ask in Charcoal HQ.

@Luuklag sounds like a useful feature request for Smokey, but sadly its devs don't really do any feature requests. Always when I tried to ask they politely said "no, we won't waste time on any feature requests". Well, in their own words.

So bottom line, it won't happen. :)

If one want something done in Smokey, they would have to write it themselves. Open source, after all.

Journeyman Geek

2:19 PM

@ShadowWizardHatesOmicron MS basically hired up a ton of SE sre talent. He got hired separately from but is working with Nick.

cigien

2:42 PM

@Glorfindel Did you feedback that post from this room by any chance? Yours is the first feedback, and the timestamp for the feedback is 13:46:30, and the message was posted here at 13:46. Just wondering, since the post shouldn't get reported if it already has fp feedback.

@cigien no, via FDSC (you can check this by hovering over the first red X)

@JourneymanGeek heh, those two might actually make MS better, working together. ;)

Bit less bugs...

cigien

@Glorfindel Right, sorry, I meant did you see the post here first, or somewhere else?

3:01 PM

♦ The Fire Department

Where smoke detectors keep us on our heels all day. No chit-ch...

that room doesn't have a delay

and a noise-to-information ratio of 1:1000, so perfect for me :)

cigien

Ok, thanks. From the timestamps I'm guessing you gave feedback just after it got reported here, even though it was reported to The Fire Department immediately.

1 hour later…

Rob

4:06 PM

@Luuklag We can exclude by reason (per room), and if the reason is frequently false then it will need more than one reason to get posted here (after the delay); thus greatly reducing the noise, leaving those who prefer it to seek it out at the source. --- This has been suggested more than a few times, but you know, the noise. :(

4:36 PM

I've been thinking maybe some of the noisier reasons should be relegated back to experimental, which would squelch them here

but for the immediate discussion I'm guessing the message was scheduled to be posted here before it had FPs, and then ChatExchange took a while to actually deliver it

... should Biblical Hermeneutics posts not be reported here, or posts with repeated characters? This one could use some flags if it's acceptable here: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/73890/19433 (SD report)