My post didn't show up

[vulcanlogician]

I composed a post w/ a Spinoza quote in So, why doesn't Scripture uniquely endorse a specific denomination ? and it didn't show up. Why?

[Losty]

It got caught in the spam filter

[vulcanlogician]

It got caught in the spam filter

What kind of spam filter disables Spinoza quotes? The post was literally nothing more than a quote from the philosopher.

Should I try to repost the quote or should I just bow down to the gods of spam?

[brewer]

It got caught in the spam filter

What kind of spam filter disables Spinoza quotes? The post was literally nothing more than a quote from the philosopher.

Should I try to repost the quote or should I just bow down to the gods of spam?

Have you read the rules yet?: https://atheistforums.org/rules.php

There is this thingy about no outside content links for 30 days and 30 posts. I like ya and don't want you to get yer hand slapped.

Give the mods time to review and release.

[vulcanlogician]

What kind of spam filter disables Spinoza quotes? The post was literally nothing more than a quote from the philosopher.

Should I try to repost the quote or should I just bow down to the gods of spam?

Have you read the rules yet?: https://atheistforums.org/rules.php

There is this thingy about no outside content links for 30 days and 30 posts. I like ya and don't want you to get yer hand slapped.

Give the mods time to review and release.

I did breeze over the rules, and I remember the part about outside content. But it seemed to me that this rule was about links and not quotes.

[brewer]

Have you read the rules yet?: https://atheistforums.org/rules.php

There is this thingy about no outside content links for 30 days and 30 posts. I like ya and don't want you to get yer hand slapped.

Give the mods time to review and release.

I did breeze over the rules, and I remember the part about outside content. But it seemed to me that this rule was about links and not quotes.

You are correct but since I haven't seen your post I was guessing. External links is one of the most common overlooked faux pas. 

Unless they've already identified you as a spy. Then you're on your own.

[The Valkyrie]

There are various reasons posts get caught in the spam filter.

Everything from content to the spam filter screwing up again.

[Autumnlicious]

It got caught in the spam filter

What kind of spam filter disables Spinoza quotes? The post was literally nothing more than a quote from the philosopher.

Should I try to repost the quote or should I just bow down to the gods of spam?

Oddly enough, the common anti-spam technique is to use Bayesian classification (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_Ba..._filtering). In one sense, it is poetic that one philosopher's quote is shot down by an implementation of another philosopher's theorems.

Now that I have your attention, let me be clear that Staff have little to no control over the act of assigning a false positive. We do have control over marking it as "not spam" but that is all. It's a primitive model of spam-like classification, not a full on AI with the ability to tell spam and Spinoza apart.

We try our best to police the filter, but if you've been bitten by it, just let us know and we'll look into it.

[brewer]

What kind of spam filter disables Spinoza quotes? The post was literally nothing more than a quote from the philosopher.

Should I try to repost the quote or should I just bow down to the gods of spam?

Oddly enough, the common anti-spam technique is to use Bayesian classification (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_Ba..._filtering). In one sense, it is poetic that one philosopher's quote is shot down by an implementation of another philosopher's theorems.

Now that I have your attention, let me be clear that Staff have little to no control over the act of assigning a false positive. We do have control over marking it as "not spam" but that is all. It's a primitive model of spam-like classification, not a full on AI with the ability to tell spam and Spinoza apart.

We try our best to police the filter, but if you've been bitten by it, just let us know and we'll look into it.

You're giving away secrets, mole!

[Autumnlicious]

I've noticed Losty handled the false positive and restored the post. I can see why a naive Bayes classifier would think it's spammy - it's seemingly devoid of context, has extraneous BBcode and inconsistent/extraneous quotation marks. Furthermore the poster has relatively few posts and is new.

This is not a criticism but an observation towards the nature of why the false positive occurred. As a consequence, the more discussion posts you make and the longer you're here, the probability of being falsely flagged as spam drops precipitously.

I am closing this thread as the original issue is solved and there is nothing else to do on the matter.