One quite perplexing common theme is "thing gets flagged -> thing gets resolved by a human as a false positive or whatever -> two weeks later, thing gets flagged again with no change, presumably by an automated system".
If the flagging is done by a human, is there really no "case file" that records the previous flags and why they were false positives? If it is done by an automated system, why is it allowed to flag things that a human has already cleared with no change?
Not a FB story, but I once had an innocuous profile image on a Google side-account get flagged and automatically restricted from public view. I requested human review and it was manually approved. The next week it got flagged again; same process, reapproved. This kept happening every week until 5 times total; I kept going just to see how long would it take them to stop, as I didn't really care about the image or even the account.
Long time after I'd last used that account, I logged-in again and, you guessed it, the image was flagged. Requested yet another review, approved. Was it really that hard for them to trigger human reviews before restricting content that had already been reviewed?
Good question! I would also like to know the answer. I've scanned through our sites and couldn't find any malicious content... My guess is that the block was automated, and might have been caused by a fake spam report. There can be some competition between non-profits (e.g. two scouting groups in the same local area). Maybe they started to report each other as a joke.
Did you consider the fact that your domain name itself could have been the cause by itself? It is not extremely far fetched that stamhoofd could somehow find its way in being found offensive by some automated tool (or a person who takes these things very seriously). It would explain the TOS violation too, if it considered the word to be problematic.
Right, from a user's point of view labelling it "Spam" has the same effect as when you put letters unread on that pile by the door, "I don't want to read this". Should they? Doesn't matter. Years back we even had users who were paying us to send them specific emails and would mark it as spam.
The use of "users marked this as spam" as a signal is a cheap but lousy shortcut and it's bad news that we became reliant upon it.
Note that adding your domain to the PSL changes how browsers interact with it, so don't do it lightly. In particular, no more cookies for the parent domain.
This is not only with printers, but with everything you search for, it makes me so sad! Everything is just full of SEO optimised nonsense. In the past it was so easy to search for something and actually find it. Now you only find crappy sites, full of ads, pop ups and brain-dead content optimised for SEO. It looks like Google has stepped away from reputation based scoring to a score that is too much focused on the textual content of sites. I hope this creates opportunities for new players in the market that are able to solve this and can outperform Google. That would be good for the internet.
