Active Topics
 |
|
2008-05-10
, 22:38
|
|
Posts: 5,478 |
Thanked: 5,222 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ St. Petersburg, FL
|
#42
|
Well, I'd say the poll appears pretty conclusive. Any input here from Reggie?
 |
|
2008-05-11
, 00:43
|
|
Posts: 2,869 |
Thanked: 1,784 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Po' Bo'. PA
|
#43
|
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.
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.
 |
|
2008-05-11
, 01:06
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#44
|
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.
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.
| The Following User Says Thank You to Benson For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2008-05-11
, 01:11
|
|
Posts: 662 |
Thanked: 238 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
|
#45
|
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.
|
|
2008-05-11
, 04:32
|
|
Posts: 2,869 |
Thanked: 1,784 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Po' Bo'. PA
|
#46
|
Originally Posted by Benson
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.
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 ********.
Last edited by YoDude; 2008-05-11 at 04:39.
|
|
2008-05-11
, 04:41
|
|
Posts: 5,478 |
Thanked: 5,222 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ St. Petersburg, FL
|
#47
|
Originally Posted by YoDude
********, all it does it make it harder to read.
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 ********.
 |
|
2008-05-11
, 05:26
|
|
Posts: 566 |
Thanked: 145 times |
Joined on Feb 2008
@ Tallahassee, FL
|
#48
|
...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??
besides, you're an adult, and in college -- can't you express yourself adequately without relying on profanity??
|
|
2008-05-11
, 05:43
|
|
Posts: 5,478 |
Thanked: 5,222 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ St. Petersburg, FL
|
#49
|
Originally Posted by briand
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?
...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.
Originally Posted by briand
besides, you're an adult, and in college -- can't you express yourself adequately without relying on profanity??
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.
 |
|
2008-05-11
, 05:43
|
|
Posts: 4,274 |
Thanked: 5,358 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Looking at y'all and sighing
|
#50
|
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.
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.
...
That was mean. I looked, and nothing there. For a second there I thought I was gonna make some relative really happy.
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net