35

This is a question regarding a declined Rude/Abusive flag I raised against this answer (10k+) earlier today. The contents of the answer for those under 10k rep:

Body must be at least 30 characters; you entered 11.

So nothing particularly foul, and does not even attempt to answer the question so at the very least Not An Answer. But where have I seen that text before?

Stack Overflow answer box with body length warning

Copy-pasting the body length warning from the answer box (in my opinion) constitutes a gibberish answer as much as mashing the keyboard does. There is already a consensus on MSE that nonsensical answers should be flagged as Rude/Abusive if only to get the content off the site quicker. For me this falls under:

This includes posts by new users that contain no useful content at all

The user was also named "Test", which implies that this account was never really going to provide any serious content.

What confuses me further is that (presumably) the moderator who handled this flag decided to delete the user in question, something which to my knowledge is not normally done if a post is marked NAA instead.

I'm just confused about how the outcomes of this flag seem so inconsistent.

  • If the post wasn't R/A, why delete the user?
  • If it's borderline, why decline instead of dispute?
  • If gibberish or nonsense is posted, should it be left to go through the (fairly busy) Low Quality Posts queue, against the already-established consensus?

What's the best way of handling nonsense posts that don't involve keyboard-mashing?

12
  • 5
    Fairly busy low quality posts queue or real busy mod queue, I think we have some moderators that prefer "Not an Answer" and let the community handle it. If you like to be safe flag that NAA and down vote, if you flag abusive you will risk a dispute or decline depending on moderator's view, OP's standing (reputation) etc. – Petter Friberg Jan 29 '19 at 17:03
  • "why decline instead of dispute?" - do your know that moderators can't dispute flags? (I can't find good writeup but meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/253112/… is close). – Alexei Levenkov Jan 29 '19 at 18:23
  • 2
    @AlexeiLevenkov I had a disputed R/A flag from earlier today as well, so as far as I'm aware the option is there. – Michael Dodd Jan 29 '19 at 18:26
  • Side note: please check my edit to the title ("querying" looks like you were looking for some help on SEDE or in some way trying to get some stats on those flags) – Alexei Levenkov Jan 29 '19 at 18:26
  • 2
    @AlexeiLevenkov I used "Querying" as I'm enquiring about the decision-making process for this flag, but can see where confusion would come in – Michael Dodd Jan 29 '19 at 18:28
  • @MichaelDodd "disputed R/A"... that's interesting - I'm quite sure every time that's come up mods say they can't "dispute" any flags - but maybe I got it wrong... – Alexei Levenkov Jan 29 '19 at 18:29
  • 2
    @AlexeiLevenkov Screenshot: i.stack.imgur.com/nlmyO.png - In this case it was abusive language in Hindi. – Michael Dodd Jan 29 '19 at 18:35
  • There have been similar cases, like the help for How-to-Answer pasted into one, but IIRC they always end up being flagged and deleted as NAA, because it's not clear the poster is trolling, which is the only reason to flag such things as R/A. Now if they tried to insert some profane link in the meanwhile, or it was an obviously intentionally long answer from a known troll, things would have been different. – M.A.R. Jan 29 '19 at 21:40
  • 4
    @AlexeiLevenkov Actually, yes, we do have the ability to "dispute" a spam or R/A flag instead of simply declining it, but (1) it's not part of the normal flag-handling tools, and (2) we don't do it nearly as often as declining or marking them helpful. See Yvette's answer for explanation. – elixenide Jan 30 '19 at 12:53
  • 2
    Eh, I wouldn't flag this--in isolation, at least--as R/A, but rather VLQ or NAA. It shouldn't have been rejected either way, though. I tend to disagree with the "community consensus" you linked to a bit, especially considering it has been edited scores of times by nearly as many random users in the 7 years since it was actually a version that got tagged as faq. – TylerH Jan 30 '19 at 14:59
  • 1
    Something similar happened to me this morning. I flagged a post where the OP had copy/pasted the string "It looks like your post is mostly code; please add some more details." five times in their question. My flag was rejected. Question: stackoverflow.com/questions/54424899/…. – Dan Jan 30 '19 at 18:43
  • 6
    It's counterproductive to generate this much noise for every mishandled flagging attempt. – Kaz Jan 30 '19 at 19:02
27

TL DR:

A rude/abusive, not an answer or low quality flag are all suitable for this type of post. A custom mod flag is only suitable if the post has been on the site for some time, i.e. the automatic deletion provided by the other flags hasn't worked.


Disclaimer: I didn't handle the flag, so I can't answer for the mod who did.

What happened

The not an answer flags were marked helpful, the rude/abusive flags were declined. The account was then destroyed.

Reason
This user was created to post spam or nonsense and has no other positive participation

this is a canned reason

Abusive of the site

Posts like that are abusive of the site and it's recommended to flag as rude/abusive. They're time wasters and often the pattern that trolls use on the site. There is the caveat that sometimes people will test the waters (literally at times), but it's a fine line to know which is which. I wouldn't penalise the flagger for flagging a nonsense post as rude/abusive, I'd dispute the flag if there was ambivalence. For example, if the user has also posted useful content.

The not an answer or very low quality flags also suit this type of post. The post would most likely be deleted before a custom mod flag would be handled, so it's probably of no practical use to raise a custom flag. The mod will still have to go to the post even if it's been deleted by standard user flags, so it's a waste of time, unless the post has been sitting there for some time.

When handling posts like that, I check the user's activity for other posts. If there's no sensible posts and the account has been opened recently (often they will be opened minutes before posting) the account will be destroyed. If it's an older account I usually check to see if there's been any suspicious activity, re login before destroying, as people's accounts can sometimes be hacked.

After discussion with another mod, I've cleared the flags and re-deleted it as rude/abusive. This has now marked the rude/abusive flags as disputed, rather than declined.

There's some controversy over the intent of the linked Meta posts. I've included some of Shog's answer here:

Abusive means what it says. Don't overthink this.

Look... The problem folks have with these is that they see the pile of nonsense and try to extract meaning from it. "Surely if I can determine what the author's intent was," you might imagine them saying to themselves, "...I can then pick the exact right type of flag."

This is an utter waste of time. There is no meaning to the post! It's VLQ, it's abuse, it's Not An Answer, heck it might even be a spammer, testing the waters... There's no metric you can apply that'll narrow that down, because there is no meaningful content to apply metrics to.

So pick the flag that speaks to you. I'm partial to "rude or abusive", because enough of them immediately delete and lock the post, which is handy in those rare scenarios where someone's flooding the site with a lot of these... But VLQ or NAA work just as well in the vast majority of cases. The important thing to remember here is that when the post clearly means nothing, you shouldn't be wasting too much thought trying to decipher it; flag it and move on with your life.

Please note "I'm partial to "rude or abusive"", but Shog also states that any flag would work as well.

20
  • 3
    Your answer mischaracterizes Shog's post. Shog's post addresses pure gibberish in the first place, not low quality answers that form complete, comprehensible sentences. In fact, it explicitly excludes some of even lower quality than that. Furthermore, it recommends choosing "the flag that speaks to you," citing rude/abusive only as a personal preference for its side effects. If you're going to cite a source, then you need a source that says what you claim it does. – jpmc26 Jan 30 '19 at 3:52
  • 5
    @jpmc26 I'm pinging Shog himself to weigh in on this. It's pretty clear to me what he is referring to, but we will let him clarify\ that. – user3956566 Jan 30 '19 at 3:57
  • 3
    Shog can say whatever he wants here. If it's different than what the post says, though, it's not what people voted on. If this post qualifies for "rude or abusive," what kind of NAA post doesn't? Shog's original post is an answer to a question that drew a clear, unambiguous, objective line: absolute gibberish. – jpmc26 Jan 30 '19 at 4:07
  • 4
    @jpmc26 I honestly don't understand your arguments here. It's like you're determined to acknowledge anything that doesn't agree with your take on the situation. – user3956566 Jan 30 '19 at 4:12
  • 16
    @jpmc26 I'm telling people how they should flag. I'm a moderator, I have a good idea of what we want people to do. I've been discussing this with other moderators. It's also no policy change. I've been flagging this way for years myself – user3956566 Jan 30 '19 at 4:31
  • 29
    You're really over-thinking this, @jpmc26. It's The Internet; folks have been posting nonsense - sometimes composed of real words - here for the entire time the site has been around. And we've been deleting it for just as long: via vote, via moderator, via spam flags and yes also via abuse flags. Truth is, we're never gonna all agree on why folks do this, or which flag to use to delete. Possibly the only thing we can ever agree on is that it should be deleted... And that somehow it must be Australia's fault – Shog9 Jan 30 '19 at 4:49
  • 2
    @Shog9 And you are severely underestimating the importance of having a semblance of clarity and consistency in your policies and their documentation. I don't need patronizing jokes. I need for SO to mean what it says and say what it means. – jpmc26 Jan 30 '19 at 5:12
  • 6
    Not at all; the robustness principle should be applied here: be strict in how you flag, liberal in how you handle those flags. When folks use their best judgement, things almost always work out just fine. – Shog9 Jan 30 '19 at 5:15
  • 2
    @Shog9 This answer is not advocating for being "strict in how you flag." Nor are any of the moderator comments. All of them are saying explicitly the rude/abusive flag is the correct flag for something that site documentation clearly says that it is not. Sure. If a wrong type of flag comes through on a problem post, delete the post. But then there's also nothing wrong with declining the flag first because it was the wrong type. You're right that the important thing is that the post is deleted, but you're wrong if you think that's what this answer or other moderators are saying here. – jpmc26 Jan 30 '19 at 5:23
  • 5
    You seem awful sure it was the wrong type. I'm less sure. I think it's useful to be generous in one's interpretation when unsure. This is the essence of the principle: assume good faith & try to make it work. – Shog9 Jan 30 '19 at 5:29
  • 2
    @Shog9 1. Please pass that advice along to the moderators here insisting that R/A is the correct flag type. 2. You say that as if this was arbitrary opinion, but I reached this conclusion by reading site documentation. The R/A flag description doesn't include this, the FAQ says use NAA, and your post is about cat-on-the-keyboard. By contrast, it fits clearly into NAA (though NAA has a long history of being mishandled) and the FAQ advocates it ("The post contains no useful information, such as ... 'I don't care about your problem'. Flag as [NAA] instead."). That is just reading, not opinion. – jpmc26 Jan 30 '19 at 5:40
  • 7
    @jpmc26 I might see a misunderstanding here. Do you think we're saying R/A is the correct flag type, and others are wrong? I'll accept any type of flag on this junk - I'm not gonna start declining NAA flags. But I also don't see any point in declining R/A flags on this, whether you think they're the optimal flag or not. – Undo Mod Jan 30 '19 at 5:49
  • 2
    @Undo Obviously so if you're going to the extra effort of "correcting" it by clearing the flags and re-deleting it using rude/abusive. At no point have I suggested that the post shouldn't have been deleted or flagged. I merely stated that there are more appropriate flags and that declination was appropriate. (I have just clarified my answer on this front that the following deletion is part of that appropriate action.) And that the arguments in favor of rude/abusive are misleading at best. – jpmc26 Jan 30 '19 at 5:55
  • 4
    @jpmc26 lets be very clear, this stuff should be deleted. How should it be deleted? In whatever way we consider more effective. If that method is spam, R/A flags, naa, vlq's, voodoo dolls or smoke signal is irrelevant. This should be deleted. Now, I blame moderators for this discussion, because they wanted to be more "strict" on what kind of flags they handled with the NAA fiasco. I would suggest that Shog revisit the "delete this" flag proposal by Gilles. That would be the most correct flag in any situation. – Braiam Jan 30 '19 at 19:34
  • 3
    @Braiam totally agree. Dissolve the naa and low qual flags and have a delete this flag. – user3956566 Jan 30 '19 at 19:41
6

This includes posts by new users that contain no useful content at all

This is my suggestion to keep it simple (and it was also probably Animuson♦'s original intent*):

All other no useful content at all must somehow be evaluated; in your case, a moderator needs to notice that it was a copy and paste from the Q/A interface and that it was not related to the question.

If it's no useful content at all you can still flag:

  1. "In need of moderator intervention", if you think the matter needs to be handled fast, explain the issue and as a moderator arrives they will quickly get the context.

  2. "Not an answer" or "very low quality" if we are in no hurry, to let the community delete it and we leave moderators to handle more urgent issues.

* The meta you quoted specifically indicates what the phrase "no useful content at all" is, it uses i.e and the original phrase is "It contains only gibberish, such as "fsdguejgkfdlk", see also how "I don't care about your problem" is only NAA

33
  • 7
  • 3
    @JoshCaswell Personally I feel that there is a great differenze between spam and gibberish, gibberish you could actually post by mistake or just some innocent ingenuity. If we start to flag as abusive "contain no useful content at all", I guess all NAA will fall in this category. "Did you ever solve this problem?" hardly "contains any useful content at all". – Petter Friberg Jan 29 '19 at 17:52
  • 1
    @PetterFriberg I guess all NAA will fall in this category - But there's still a big difference between "Use this link" / "Me too" NAA and gibberish though. – Michael Dodd Jan 29 '19 at 17:57
  • 4
    One should not need to investigate the history of a user to determine what kind of flag to use. – jpmc26 Jan 29 '19 at 19:26
  • 2
    @jpmc26 you have to take that argument with Shog, but if you don't like to investigate I propose you assume good faith (just a misstake) and flag gibberish as NAA, then wait for the LQP queue to delete it – Petter Friberg Jan 29 '19 at 19:59
  • 4
    Body must be at least 30 characters; you entered 11. – Undo Mod Jan 29 '19 at 23:08
  • 4
    So... you're perfectly fine with me posting comments in that vein ^, and you don't think it's abusing the system? I beg to differ. It's as useless as it gets (exactly as useless as cat-on-keyboard; there's no useful entropy here), and likely some idiot at a public library or school computer lab. This is exactly what SpamRam should be targeting. – Undo Mod Jan 29 '19 at 23:10
  • 1
    This is misleading people on how to flag. It's contra to the faq and Shog's advice – user3956566 Jan 30 '19 at 2:16
  • 1
    @jpmc26 The Honeymoon Well mine is a proposed mining project in the west of Australia in the state of Western Australia. – Undo Mod Jan 30 '19 at 3:44
  • 4
    To actually answer your comment: It's not a straw man. This is exactly what SpamRam is for. There's no need to be pedantic about the wording; an R/A flag is perfect for this crap: (1) redacts content for 10k so it never wastes anyone's time again, (2) applies IP blocks if there's a pattern, so I don't have to deal with a bunch of these from some idiot, (3) Puts post in the audit pool, and these make perfect audits, (4) surfaces the easy-to-handle crap for me to handle quickly. Look at the mechanics of the system, not the wording in the flag dialog. – Undo Mod Jan 30 '19 at 3:55
  • 1
    @Undo The issue is that on SO you mods have different views on this and we would need to establish when the "trolling" is sufficient to merit abusive flag. "Hi how are you?" <- is that enough, "I managed to post on SO!" <-- maybe that?. I never stated that I personally would decline a flag like that, but I think flaggers need a simple rule and I also think there is no damage to SO to "only" flag these NAA or Custom moderator flag (probably the work flow is even better flagging like this). I can't really understand why you think it's important to flag these abusive? – Petter Friberg Jan 30 '19 at 8:30
  • 1
    @PetterFriberg (re your last comment) they're not abusive - they're people often misunderstanding how to use the site - assuming good faith - as opposed to someone posting in copy and paste of bits of the site. We all know full well it's not an attempt to do anything except be a hmmm.. searching for politically correct word - nefarious – user3956566 Jan 30 '19 at 8:35
  • 1
    @YvetteColomb I know that the flag community is happy when they can flag everything they don't like as abusive (and nuke'it), but I still think we are continuing the confusion, It would be so much simpler for the flag users to have it simple like "if OP is trolling" --> leave custom flag, "if rude/offensive post" --> flag rude. Now that I can flag "Body must be at least 30 characters; you entered 11." as abusive can I also flag "\o/ Tanks in advantage" as abusive?... or "Wheze thez solotion?" ... – Petter Friberg Jan 30 '19 at 8:41
  • 2
    @PetterFriberg nothing is black and white. That's what Shog's been trying to say. We need to use our brains to think things through. We're giving people examples. Passing things that can be handled by the community over to mods is not a good idea at all. NAA and Low qual flags bump posts into the review queues where they can also be deleted. A rude/abusive flag prevents a new user from posting again from that IP. It spam hobbles them and frankly, that's a good thing when people are here for fun and games only and not serious at all. – user3956566 Jan 30 '19 at 8:49
  • 1
    @PetterFriberg it's not an us against them - mods are part of the community. I asked Shog to join these threads. – user3956566 Jan 30 '19 at 9:10
6

The "rude or abusive" flag description says,

A reasonable person would find this content inappropriate for respectful discourse.

It links to the Code of Conduct, which only talks about behaviors against other users.

The answer said,

Body must be at least 30 characters; you entered 11.

There is obviously no rude language nor abuse of another user here.

In fact, this might even be an attempt to answer if the question was, "Why am I getting an error attempting to submit this content to my website?" Maybe the user posted this answer on the wrong question and meant to post it on one like I suggest. Who knows? Now, that would be a poor question and a poor answer indeed, but it clearly doesn't qualify as "rude or abusive."

Declining the flag and then deleting it separately is clearly an appropriate response. It would of course be inappropriate (and likely a mistake) for a mod to decline and then not delete the post, but the post was deleted in this case.


As for what flag you should use, the FAQ you linked suggests Not an Answer is the most appropriate:

The post contains no useful information, such as an answer that says “I don't care about your problem”. Flag as not an answer instead.

And logically, I agree. However, NAA has a long history of being evaluated out of context. It gets declined more frequently than it ought to (or at least has historically).

If NAA fails (which it may), then you'd be better served by raising a custom flag for a post like this. Then you can include an explanation, explicitly telling the moderator that the post makes no sense in context. Apparently, it's discouraged to do this from the get go, but it might also give you a better result with less effort in practice. You may wish to apply your judgement about how obvious it is that the post is Not an Answer.

Since it's human readable and doesn't contain any offensive language, rude/abusive isn't appropriate. Neither is spam since it's not undisclosed promotion.


Lastly, the "consensus" you cite is based on this post by Shog, which has several notable qualities:

  1. It's talking about pure gibberish. For example, the text "dfajiojaifojadiofjadhigaowkokaomdiovnuiyhioqejgioqejgio". The post you flagged is not this. It is readable English, even if it doesn't make a lot of sense in context.
  2. Shog is suggesting that any flag is okay for pure gibberish, and he personally prefers the "abusive" reason only because of the side effect of post locking. Once it's in front of a moderator's eyes, locking no longer matters. It follows then that a moderator may decline the flag if they determine that it's an inappropriate type. The important thing is that the gibberish post gets deleted. This is a far cry from the advice that rude/abusive is the correct flag type.
  3. It explicitly excludes "broken English":

    Note that this advice does not apply to questions or answers posted in horribly broken English; while those may well be Very Low Quality, in most cases they're still a slight step up from the sort of "cat on a keyboard" nonsense you're referring to.

    The post in question isn't even as bad as broken English. It just doesn't answer the question.

Furthermore, the advice was edited into the post you linked in 2015, long, long after the answer was deemed to be consensus by votes, and a long time before the current incarnation of our flagging system. I'm not even convinced it's valid advice anymore. And given that the answer you linked differs significantly in insisting on a particular kind of flag, I'm not sure that it was actually consensus at the time it was edited in.

10
  • 4
    You're stating that an edit in a faq should be ignored due to voting and community consensus. It's the faq, it's the goto for the site. It's something we should recommend, not argue about something that was edited in 4 years ago. Also can you see when the votes were cast? No. This is really misleading. We want answers that will help people know how to flag. – user3956566 Jan 30 '19 at 2:12
  • 3
    @YvetteColomb I'm saying the FAQ is not consistent with the source it cites, which is written as non-definitive. It being an FAQ doesn't make it some kind of holy tablet that can never be questioned. If you don't want it questioned, then make it rock solid and completely uncontroversial and obvious, rather than making it introduce weird complexities based on some half-baked personal preference post by a staff member that doesn't even suggest a definitive course of action. – jpmc26 Jan 30 '19 at 3:28
  • 1
    @YvetteColomb Shog's post literally says use any flag. So if you want the FAQ to be consistent it with, the FAQ should say to use any flag. – jpmc26 Jan 30 '19 at 3:37
  • I'm not arguing with that meta.stackoverflow.com/a/379569/3956566. I'm stating that the rude/abusive flag is acceptable and to use it or use naa or low qual. Mod flag is ok, but it's likely the post will be deleted before a mod sees the custom flag. We look at the red flags first (rude/spam) – user3956566 Jan 30 '19 at 3:42
  • 4
    @YvetteColomb Wonderful. I cannot think of any reason the answer in question should be considered high priority. If it gets deleted without taking up a mod's time, all the better. Furthermore, using "rude or abusive" as merely a priority indicator would clearly be a gross abuse of the system. As for the FAQ's management, all I see is a couple people taking it upon themselves to set policy without anyone ever voting on it and using a misleading citation to back it up. How the heck is that community consensus? – jpmc26 Jan 30 '19 at 3:48
  • 3
    I would not recommend wasting moderator time on a custom flag for stuff like this. Unless the question is here on meta and reads, "what is the minimum number of characters for posts and what number did I enter at the end of this question? 11" this is in no way mistakable for a real answer, an attempt to answer, or anything other than someone copying a handy bit of text to pad out their post; this sort of thing shows up with some frequency, and it's almost always just someone playing with the post form. Is it abusive? Maybe; as I've said before, there's no way to know when there's no content. – Shog9 Jan 30 '19 at 4:38
  • 1
    @Shog9 Then please resolve the long standing issue of NAA policy ignoring the context of the question. I'd love to avoid a custom flag, but no other flag is suitable under current policy as written. Having unofficial "rules" that are contrary to the flag guidance like that floating around is unacceptable. In fact, that applies to the issue of gibberish posts, too. – jpmc26 Jan 30 '19 at 4:43
  • 5
    Pffft. Every NAA flag takes the question into account, even if only so far as to assume that the question isn't "what does a question posted as an answer look like?" Review always includes the question for context; moderators can and do look at the question when necessary. That it's almost never necessary means it's expedient to avoid doing so in cases where an answer could actually answer the question, but... None of that applies here, at all. – Shog9 Jan 30 '19 at 4:54
  • @Shog9 I've updated my answer to be more correct about the appropriateness of NAA. Thanks for helping me understand that better. But I've left some notes about historical problems we've had with them, as that strongly influenced what I originally advocated. – jpmc26 Jan 30 '19 at 6:13
  • 2
    @Shog9 how about if we collapse all flags into a "delete this" catch all flag. That way we stop being language lawyering the flag description. – Braiam Jan 30 '19 at 19:36
5

Throwing my $0.02 in, I am in full support of flagging that post as R/A.

The other answers about the answer being NAA-only probably make some sense as they're written, BUT they missed an important clue: Trolling.

In fact, copying text directly from SE's UI is a fair way to troll. See examples: (if you want to view the original post, you need 10k reputation)

Despite that very answer not containing any offensive / abusive content, posting such text itself is a kind of trolling, so, here's my R/A flag (declined, too).

-1

I think NAA would've been the best flag here, in the end that's simply not an answer. Yes, this would waste a couple of seconds for a couple of flag reviewers, however there are way many "regular" reviewers than ones that can handle R/A flags.

Flagging as NAA would might problematic if the frequency of this kind of posts increase, however if that happens then maybe SO would add another type of flag. So far cases like this are isolated, thus won't result in too much wasted time from regular reviewers (I'd even say that the impact is minimal).

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/379552/declined-rude-abusive-flag-on-nonsense-post-that-doesnt-involve-keyboard-mashin
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-31
258920
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:IATNRAM6QUCQHR6TLS6I3Q5M4RC4ZSJZ
<urn:uuid:77b94644-d31e-427f-b024-670246211d08>
2021-08-02T10:40:03Z
151.101.129.69
text/html
sha1:QR6LKXCHQXXDI5TNFE5JQGDFVZEWWS4M
<urn:uuid:dded8a6b-9050-404e-8aa6-6751511de011>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/379552/declined-rude-abusive-flag-on-nonsense-post-that-doesnt-involve-keyboard-mashin
response
<urn:uuid:9ebdf6ea-6c02-440c-a2f1-67d5adce64d0>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-31
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July/August 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-148.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/