Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

!

...

That was mean. I looked, and nothing there. For a second there I thought I was gonna make some relative really happy. :p

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Well, I'd say the poll appears pretty conclusive. Any input here from Reggie?

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

The filter should stay on... In the end it's a revenue decision and not a moral one.
Without the filter Google could restrict their search engine if they feel this sight does not uphold certain "family values". As in all things Google this is not a humans judgment call but rather a log that is established based on the occurrence of certain words within a sites content.

Restricted search means fewer hits. Fewer hits means lower advertisement revenue.

Now unless we want to turn this into a private pay as you go site for Maemo elite, the filter is a good thing for the community.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

What?!?!

Could you show me where Google says a thing about "family values"?

If you're referring to safesearch, that's directed at blocking porn. I think any pornographic threads that show up would probably be spam, and hastily pruned as a result.

And I see other sites, fora, etc. with equivalent or higher densities (even assuming that all *****ed out words are the "worst" that would fit that length) of profanity in Google search results routinely, so I don't see any evidence that we would surpass any such hidden thresholds, even assuming that they do.

I understand your logic; I just think your premise that we would be restricted in search results if the filter were removed is wrong.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Google indexes many sites with profanity. Google indexes many sites with pornography. Google indexes everything that is legal to index. I believe it'll be fine.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Whatever... No, I'm not going to show you where Google says anything. I do not receive add revenue from Google and I don't remember the specific terminology used when I did manage such things.

I do not believe that we would be restricted in search results if the filter were removed however, I maintain that site content and policies regarding content affect ad revenue in the long run.

I don't give a rats *** one way or another but I have seen threads degrade into garbage just based on the verbiage used in the title. So a filter is a good thing in that regard. It reduces the ********. :p

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

********, all it does it make it harder to read.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

...and, changing the status quo may very well make it harder to read -- my employer would, in short order, completely block this domain if the "offensive language" filter in their web proxy started dinging too much.

besides, you're an adult, and in college -- can't you express yourself adequately without relying on profanity??

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

That's hardly my problem. If you feel you should be able to browse a certain website while at work, then you should take that up with your employer, not hoist censorship on the rest of us. Shouldn't you be working at work, anyway? ;)

:rolleyes:

Where and when exactly has my communication here indicated that I'm incapable of expressing myself without the use of profanity? My intentions here have absolutely nothing to do with my own profanity usage and, quite honestly, I find it rather offensive that you believe my only purpose here is to gain the ability to drop uncensored f-bombs.

Quite simply, I'm morally opposed to censorship, and don't think we all need to be treated like children by default. If you want to enable the filter for yourself, then that's fine, but I don't see any reason it should be forced on people who find it both morally and practically irritating.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

YoDude & briand

Yes but isn't that the point - by default it's off. So google/whatever would only see ****'s where as we, with the option, would see $h!t (s/!/i) and that option would be set in the cookie which google won't steal :P

You would have the choice about the filter.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

The google argument is pretty much invalid, as all one has to do is turn on censoring for google bots and the problem is solved.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Ah, interesting.

But who would have turned it off in the first place? I thought it's meant to stay on but we have an option to turn it off individually.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

So we'd see $hit?

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

:P

Filter blocks s/i/! out too, I couldn't be bothered to change all of it :P

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

I think I found what I had read awhile ago that I based my previous statement on...

>>> https://www.google.com/adsense/suppo...id=zGKN_IQm1A8

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Actually, my employer allows the browsing of sites, reading of forums, etc on our desktop machines (ie: recreational, personal internet usage), but does put limits on the type of content that can be accessed from their machines.

Even though your name isn't the one signing my paychecks, and I am in no way accountable to you for my work performance, I will tell you that I am one of the most productive employees in our office. ...and, no, we're not expected to work during lunch breaks, etc. Your implication is flawed; a similarly flawed implication is that you shouldn't be spending time reading/writing here, since you should either a) be in class, or b) be preparing for class; you're enrolled in a degree program at a university, and there is no curriculum that requires your participation here. ;)


I was using the generic, all-encompassing "you" when I wrote about the ability to express a point without profanity. I'll admit that I could have worded this point differently so that it didn't appear I was singling you out, individually. I've read several of your posts here, and I know you have the ability to adequately express yourself.

We (or, most of us, anyway) may not need to be treated like children, but we do need to be cognizant of the fact that younger readers do participate here, and as a courtesy to them, we should refrain from using profanity in these discussions. Automated moderation/censoring of potentially offending text by the software lessens the workload for the moderator(s) here, who strive to make this forum a "family friendly" site.

I'm opposed to censorship as well, and perhaps as fervently, as you are. I would agree that you and I probably do not need to be "treated as children" by default; I'm afraid this does not hold true for every member of this community, however.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Why can't we simply put a nice, small, checkable box in the user profiles...

You may browse at work, the children need not stain their eyes with profanity, and we can say *****-x without confusing anyone ;)

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

He said аss!

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

He said "***-bang"?
(UNIX pronunciation applied properly is amusing, in a juvenile way. :D)

One (troublesome) detail about at-work filtration; client-side censoring won't help with that, unless done in a sufficiently complex and clever fashion. I can see how to do that, but it really ought to be server-side. Which is harder to add, I think.

BTW, Reggie; you really need to turn off that filter; you're gonna get more profanity from people cleverly dodging it than you ever would with it off. ;)

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Client side censoring? That would take more work than anything... When the iTT server sends you the page, all it needs to do is see if you're username wants profanity on or off. Then it sends the page processed just as it should be, the profanity never, ever reaches the client, if they so please.

With **** like that, or **** like sh-it. ;)

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

No, I was thinking wrap it in a <span class="badword">, and CSS that. Wouldn't take much work, as the post text could be stored with the span tags in place, and dumped as-is. Just the censoring client-side, not the token identification... that would be bad.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Ah, that is a great idea. It would be perfect if a human were seleceting the sites to block.

But, I think for it to be kept in the workplace with software selected blocks, we will need to put a little more work upon the server. :(

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

I see that one of their "don'ts" is excessive profanity. Ah. So it's more a question of quantity than quality. But how do they define this thing, "excessive"? Is it a pure percentage quota, ie, 1 expression of profanity per, say, every 25 words? Is the quota per user, per site, per post, per page??? Do I get rollover curse words if I don't use up my allotment in the given time frame (whatever the hell-- er, heck it is)?

Ah, the questions that trouble the profane mind...

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

If it was my income I wouldn't define shyt... I would simply abide. :)

Did you also see "Hacking/cracking content" listed as well?


As I said, I don't receive ad revenue. But I have been known to meet more than a few who do for drinks on a semi-regular basis.
One forum owner I know received a denial from Google and it took him almost 4 months of email appeals, demonstrated use of new "swear filters", newly posted rules, etc. before re-reinstatement.

This denial BTW, came after months of regular income which abruptly stopped. He believes it may have simply been prompted by a disgruntled former member who complained.

This affected me in a negative way also as I found that I now had to pay for more of my drinks. :eek:

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

While that is interesting (and I do hope that by hacking/cracking they mean "cracking, also known as hacking"; opposing any of the mainstream hacking on here would seriously violate DBE), it's (fortunately) not applicable to itT at present, as itT doesn't use Google AdSense.

Of course, on a second glance at the list... Wow. That doesn't look much like DBE from here. I've always considered Google to be a little on the fruity-green side, anyway, but whaddya expect from California? But "Sales or promotion of weapons or ammunition"? Hoplophobia at its best.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

That was a little tongue-in-cheek post pointing out how it isn't really as simple as "abiding", dude. There's no way to follow such vague rules with any degree of certainty. Argue as you may, but "excessive" is subjective.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

I worked with a guy who used the F word between almost every other word (unless he got really stressed when the level went up), even if one of those words was an F word. It sounded really stupid when you first heard it, but after a while you didn't actually notice it any more. Your mind just went into filter mode. I think he was ex merchant navy.

But when you thought about it it was rather funny.

That is an americanism that I noticed when I lived there. Is 'hell' considered a profanity there?

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Somewhat; not as bad as some, but definitely not for polite company.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

WTF "argue" ???

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

*shrug*

You seem to enjoy that with me, so I was being pre-emptive. :p

And I'm so disgusted that "rollover curse words" went over like a lead balloon. *sigh* I know, I know: don't quit the day job.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Anyone done the S****horpe joke yet?


He wasn't a chef was he?

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Yeah, I had the same impression. Kudos from me too :)

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Filter doesn't work well then!

No, but he was a wan.. umm.. bit of an idiot.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Huh? General Antilles wrote "********" and it didn't get filtered, but someone wrote "I don't give a rat's ***" and that got filtered?! That's weird.

Ah, the costs of having a Puritan heritage. Dry counties and profanity filters.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

...and qolling. Never forget the qolling.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

I keep misreading the thread title as "The Automated Profanity Filler". I don't know why. I do think qwerty might be the man for the job though.

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Well, anyone named after a keyboard...

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

so, John C. Dvorak as well, then? ;)

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Oh, without a doubt. :D

Re: The Automated Profanity Filter
 

Sometimes profanity is the only thing that can correctly convey the meaning you want. Profanity is not the same as disrespect and heated discussions. If talk.maemo.org is an informal forum, I see no reason to automatically strip/censor these (sometimes necessary) words.