More "community" problems ...

[rslade]

Couple more issues:

Just had an odd experience on the "community."  A posting I was working on disappeared, while I was trying to do some final edits.  (The editor is pretty strange, so you have to do a fair amount of hacking, at times, if you are doing anything more than the simplest message.)

Fortunately, I had a copy in another window, so I recreated it.  Then, while trying to do some of the edits, it disappeared again.

I finally found it again.  But I doubt you can, because it's been marked as spam, apparently.  (The two copies *should* be at

https://community.isc2.org/t5/GDPR/GDPR-and-killing-the-CISSPforum/m-p/11172 and https://community.isc2.org/t5/GDPR/GDPR-and-killing-the-CISSPforum/m-p/11173 )

(NB: Samantha fixed 11172 and "archived" 11173.  Thanks, @SamanthaO_isc2)

@mencikposted it for me.  That was nice of him, I thought, so I tried to give him a kudo.  Twice I got authentication error messages.

The "community" needs a bit of work ...

[SamanthaO_isc2]

Hello @rslade, 

Thank you for letting us know about this. I have removed both of your posts from the Spam area of the Community. By removing the post, it should help the system to determine that posts similar to yours are not spam. I also archived one of the posts, seeing as they are similar, so only one will appear in the Community. 

About the Kudos issue that you had, with the authentication error. Please let me know if you run into this again. If you can take a screenshot of the error, that would be helpful. You can send it along as a message, a post in the Community or an email to community@isc2.org. 

[rslade]

---

@SamanthaO_isc2 wrote:

Thank you for letting us know about this. I have removed both of your posts from the Spam area of the Community. By removing the post, it should help the system to determine that posts similar to yours are not spam. I also archived one of the posts, seeing as they are similar, so only one will appear in the Community.

---

Thanks for "despamming" me 🙂

I note that one of the standard features of spam filters is a rejection of material with a high proportion of Web links in it.  That might be what tripped it here, since I was having to include a number of URLs as examples and pointers.  You might have someone look into tuning the filter in regard to that factor.