Believe it or not, most such software doesn't have a manual black- or whitelist (as creating and keeping these up to date would be a huge undertaking), but rely on at least semi-automated means. The upside to this is that new or small sites are also taken care or by such an approach, while manual listings might skip these.
Either one would be easier than scanning the whole site for certain words, however, and that was my point. That, and that circumventing the language filter is absurdly easy unless the site has additional safeguards to prevent it. wotmania could've but never did, because the objective was to increase accessibility, not censor content. I'm still not sure why that's so objectionable here, since the same people who object to it so strenuously can work around it almost unconsciously. How much effort does it take to type <html></html> if you just HAVE to swear at people?
The entire filter is implemented server-side, all a browser will see is possible error messages (which'll then have to be parsed to see that it's a filter rather than something else).
Both the submit and preview buttons are of the same type. Any filter will either a) not be logged in, in which case that'll give an error, or b) attempt to submit a post and then parse the result. The latter scenario should mean that at least now and then there should be an extra post submitted by such a filter not sure of which of the two buttons to use.
Such checking for routines could well be implemented for major BB systems such as phpBB and vBulletin, but remember that RAFO has completely custom code that probably behaves differently from these.
--- signature starts here ---
I am the Demon of Delightfulness and Sinister Smirkings!
e^(πi)+1=0
identity named after the Terry Pratchett of 18th century mathematics
I am the Demon of Delightfulness and Sinister Smirkings!
e^(πi)+1=0
identity named after the Terry Pratchett of 18th century mathematics
Can we swear at RAFO?
- 22/11/2010 04:57:59 AM
1112 Views
Fuck no. Are you shitting me? There's no damn chance we can swear.
- 22/11/2010 05:01:48 AM
749 Views
You DARE presume to assault my delicate ears with your nasty coarse sailor talk???
- 22/11/2010 05:05:23 AM
761 Views
I can't think of underage users
- 22/11/2010 11:32:40 AM
810 Views
Well
- 22/11/2010 11:47:13 AM
812 Views
That's a good point of course
- 22/11/2010 11:58:37 AM
730 Views
Obviously we don't know what we don't know.</Rumsfeld>
- 22/11/2010 12:33:53 PM
839 Views
Apparently it's not high on Ben's priority list, so we seem to be fine for now. *NM*
- 22/11/2010 12:38:42 PM
372 Views
Back off!
*NM*
The difference is webbrowsers can't be set to automatically exlude the former from web searches.
- 22/11/2010 12:01:05 PM
799 Views
How many posts have there been with swear words in titles?
- 22/11/2010 12:45:49 PM
658 Views
Are you telling me monitors are THAT horribly inefficient?
- 22/11/2010 02:55:43 PM
837 Views
Scanning a CoC requires a human (or significantly improved parsing), whereas spidering can be dumb
- 22/11/2010 03:06:19 PM
737 Views
I figured,but checking for filter subroutines seems like it would be pretty easy.
- 22/11/2010 04:18:01 PM
848 Views
Subroutines such as what?
- 22/11/2010 04:33:05 PM
1070 Views
Well, honestly, I don't know, but I expect language filter subroutines are pretty standardized now.
- 22/11/2010 08:01:07 PM
1095 Views
The point is that there is nothing that a browser* will see of such a filter unless...
- 23/11/2010 08:56:37 AM
716 Views
OK, but even then preventing such posts covers the contingencies while censoring none.
- 23/11/2010 01:49:15 PM
762 Views
well...
- 23/11/2010 04:14:51 PM
763 Views
Re: well...
- 23/11/2010 05:26:14 PM
745 Views
Re: well...
- 23/11/2010 06:42:43 PM
721 Views
Yes, a lot of people don't seem to want RAFO "invaded" by new people.
- 23/11/2010 07:03:14 PM
797 Views
new people is not the same as children. 
*NM*
- 23/11/2010 08:30:43 PM
362 Views
*NM*
- 23/11/2010 08:30:43 PM
362 Views
True, but the same principles apply to people surfing at work or college.
- 23/11/2010 09:16:30 PM
765 Views
Please.
- 23/11/2010 09:40:16 PM
776 Views
Of course they do; who do you think creates all those time sink--er, games? 
- 23/11/2010 11:46:09 PM
725 Views
- 23/11/2010 11:46:09 PM
725 Views
I resent that.
- 23/11/2010 10:09:36 PM
643 Views
- 23/11/2010 10:09:36 PM
643 Views
*NM*
Yeah, I may have skipped a few important people, too; sorry. 
- 23/11/2010 11:44:12 PM
826 Views
- 23/11/2010 11:44:12 PM
826 Views
the whole community was younger then. It really doesn't apply to today.
- 24/11/2010 07:50:56 AM
711 Views
Unless you mean the whole internet community, it's far more applicable, but to different individuals
- 24/11/2010 02:26:01 PM
808 Views
188 f-bombs dropped in titles, $hit's used 142 times in titles
- 22/11/2010 05:01:02 PM
740 Views
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
- 22/11/2010 06:27:59 PM
731 Views
Yea, you're helping exclude dozens, if not hundreds of potential RAFOlk. 
- 22/11/2010 07:42:58 PM
886 Views
- 22/11/2010 07:42:58 PM
886 Views
Watch out. The CIA is watching you post that. And then they're going to arrest EVERYONE.
- 22/11/2010 08:09:07 PM
771 Views
I used the search function, it was just the number of post that had those in their title
- 22/11/2010 07:45:18 PM
702 Views
*waves* Hi! *NM*
- 22/11/2010 10:17:52 PM
381 Views
Hey there!
- 22/11/2010 10:30:24 PM
929 Views
A great deal of us were underage, though.
- 23/11/2010 01:11:58 AM
808 Views
And look what a dirty mouth you got even without our help *NM*
- 23/11/2010 08:04:06 AM
353 Views
*NM*
- 23/11/2010 08:04:06 AM
353 Views
All I can say to that is that people who think cursing on RAFO/WoTmania corrupts the youth
- 23/11/2010 10:13:26 PM
703 Views
Who cares about the cursing. In other ways wotmania did probably corrupt me, though.
- 23/11/2010 10:25:37 PM
735 Views
- 23/11/2010 10:25:37 PM
735 Views