Let's use this issue to collect examples of Mollom false positives - cases when it identifies totally valid post as spam and unpublishes it:
Comments:
https://www.drupal.org/node/2464331#comment-10082744
https://www.drupal.org/node/2522090#comment-10081640
https://www.drupal.org/node/545878#comment-10101952
https://www.drupal.org/node/221136#comment-10101258
https://www.drupal.org/node/2513860#comment-10068722
https://www.drupal.org/node/2513820#comment-10068828
https://www.drupal.org/node/2279249#comment-10071818
https://www.drupal.org/node/2074411#comment-10073026
https://www.drupal.org/node/2513778#comment-10066662
https://www.drupal.org/node/2513740#comment-10068506
https://www.drupal.org/node/2511634#comment-10124106
Nodes:
https://www.drupal.org/node/2529038
https://www.drupal.org/node/2530678
https://www.drupal.org/node/2514780
https://www.drupal.org/node/2535470
https://www.drupal.org/node/2532754
Comments
Comment #1
dddave commentedhttps://www.drupal.org/node/2464331#comment-10082744 (published by me, user approved by me afterwards)
https://www.drupal.org/node/2522090#comment-10081640 (published by me)
Comment #2
dddave commentedhttps://www.drupal.org/node/545878#comment-10101952
https://www.drupal.org/node/221136#comment-10101258
both by patrickearney here: https://www.drupal.org/node/2513860#comment-10068722 and here: https://www.drupal.org/node/2513820#comment-10068828 (which remained unpublished for over a week :( )
https://www.drupal.org/node/2279249#comment-10071818
https://www.drupal.org/node/2074411#comment-10073026
https://www.drupal.org/node/2513778#comment-10066662
https://www.drupal.org/node/2513740#comment-10068506
some of them get flagged for containing external links which might not be preventable
Comment #3
tvn commentedThanks, dave. Adding some as well.
Comment #4
dddave commentedhttps://www.drupal.org/node/2530678
https://www.drupal.org/node/2514780
Comment #5
tvn commentedComment #6
dddave commentedhttps://www.drupal.org/node/2511634#comment-10124106 is especially interesting because the user next comment went through, seemingly because of one extra line of content.
Comment #7
dddave commentedhttps://www.drupal.org/node/2532754
Comment #8
tvn commentedComment #9
dddave commentedCompare https://www.drupal.org/node/2533916 with https://www.drupal.org/node/2533976 and tell me what made Mollom decide differently.
Same for these comments here: https://www.drupal.org/node/2536776#comment-10140578
Comment #10
silverwing commentedOn https://www.drupal.org/node/2544692 the user soundbyte's comments were auto-unpublished (2) - I published the third attempt.
Comment #11
dddave commentedAlmost identical posts: https://www.drupal.org/node/2552087#comment-10225835
Completely identical posts: https://www.drupal.org/node/2474421#comment-10228137
Comment #12
dddave commentedhttps://www.drupal.org/user/2717389/admin-nodes
More head-scratchers: https://www.drupal.org/node/2442133#comment-10243039
Comment #13
tvn commentedWe went through examples of false positives with Nick_vh in Barcelona and confirmed that most of them had one of the urls listed in #2529118: Whitelist certain urls for Mollom spam checks . So that issue is our top priority now.
The only examples we need right now are false positives which do not contain any urls at all. If anyone comes across those please post a link here. Thanks!
Comment #14
tvn commentedClosing for now. It seems like the situation with false positives got better.