Its the latter, but right now with the fact that edit history is consistently lost on our instance (it happens a lot! – hoping the upgrade solves this), it makes it difficult to hand out higher privileges.
It’s even more than that for me. The authors/editors are a satellite unit that work outside of HQ, as you guys are. I don’t know them or have any control over them, so to manually upgrade people without some kind of system could be messy to maintain. I need to get my head around the best way to handle this.
Sorry to bump an ‘old’ thread but it seems a major issue is being ignored here which I believe should be addressed: Replying to a topic is triggering the spam detection if you’ve posted something similar in a PM regarding that topic? Is that supposed to happen?
Ha? What is the repro?
I think he’s talking about the exact duplicate content warning.
Step 1: Send a message to someone
Step 2: Try posting the exact same content in a post reply
Step 3: Notice how it triggers the exact duplicate content warning (or “too similar” warning) even though the contexts are completely separate.
Is it a Warning only, or does it prevent you from submitting?
Why would you do that? Seems like a real odd combo
Edge cases in software design don’t usually need a why, they just need to be covered. But I explained in the original post on this topic how it came to that - via the context mismatch. I had no idea I was responding to a message, and when I tried to apply the same response to the topic, I got warned that I couldn’t. Even after editing the inbox message, I still couldn’t post in the topic as long as the content remained the same - I had to reword it with synonyms basically.
It prevents me from submitting.
Though I fail to see why one would ever want to PM the same content as a post, I do agree that “post” and “pm” are different
Why does this logic scan PM data? PM is supposed to be presented as “private” (again used quotes as admins can manually choose to go look into PMs). By throwing that data into the “validation mix” you are telling the public, your PMs are discoverable.
[quote=“cpradio, post:32, topic:23215”]
Why does this logic scan PM data? PM is supposed to be presented as “private”
[/quote]System also flags PM posts as Spam if both parties share an IP address and one party is TL0. At TL0, they cannot initiate the PM exchange, only reply - and when they do, it’s flagged as Spam. Why?
Probably because it considers posts in private messages the same as any other posts, except in certain places. And private message topics are the same as regular topics, except in certain places (though certainly more places - they don’t have categories, shouldn’t be visible on the main page, …).
But why is it flagging innocent posts with no links as Spam? If it’s the sock-puppet principle, then I thought that only applied where both members were TL0 - which cannot ever occur in a PM. This happens where a TL0 member replies to a message from a TL2 member at the same IP address. That doesn’t trigger a flag in a public discussion - or didn’t, last time I checked.