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
1188 Views
Fuck no. Are you shitting me? There's no damn chance we can swear.
- 22/11/2010 05:01:48 AM
847 Views
You DARE presume to assault my delicate ears with your nasty coarse sailor talk???
- 22/11/2010 05:05:23 AM
829 Views
I can't think of underage users
- 22/11/2010 11:32:40 AM
888 Views
Well
- 22/11/2010 11:47:13 AM
889 Views
That's a good point of course
- 22/11/2010 11:58:37 AM
802 Views
Obviously we don't know what we don't know.</Rumsfeld>
- 22/11/2010 12:33:53 PM
911 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
412 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
873 Views
How many posts have there been with swear words in titles?
- 22/11/2010 12:45:49 PM
744 Views
Are you telling me monitors are THAT horribly inefficient?
- 22/11/2010 02:55:43 PM
909 Views
Scanning a CoC requires a human (or significantly improved parsing), whereas spidering can be dumb
- 22/11/2010 03:06:19 PM
803 Views
I figured,but checking for filter subroutines seems like it would be pretty easy.
- 22/11/2010 04:18:01 PM
925 Views
Subroutines such as what?
- 22/11/2010 04:33:05 PM
1156 Views
Well, honestly, I don't know, but I expect language filter subroutines are pretty standardized now.
- 22/11/2010 08:01:07 PM
1168 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
813 Views
OK, but even then preventing such posts covers the contingencies while censoring none.
- 23/11/2010 01:49:15 PM
833 Views
well...
- 23/11/2010 04:14:51 PM
849 Views
Re: well...
- 23/11/2010 05:26:14 PM
823 Views
Re: well...
- 23/11/2010 06:42:43 PM
798 Views
Yes, a lot of people don't seem to want RAFO "invaded" by new people.
- 23/11/2010 07:03:14 PM
892 Views
new people is not the same as children. 
*NM*
- 23/11/2010 08:30:43 PM
397 Views
*NM*
- 23/11/2010 08:30:43 PM
397 Views
True, but the same principles apply to people surfing at work or college.
- 23/11/2010 09:16:30 PM
846 Views
Please.
- 23/11/2010 09:40:16 PM
847 Views
Of course they do; who do you think creates all those time sink--er, games? 
- 23/11/2010 11:46:09 PM
801 Views
- 23/11/2010 11:46:09 PM
801 Views
I resent that.
- 23/11/2010 10:09:36 PM
716 Views
- 23/11/2010 10:09:36 PM
716 Views
*NM*
Yeah, I may have skipped a few important people, too; sorry. 
- 23/11/2010 11:44:12 PM
922 Views
- 23/11/2010 11:44:12 PM
922 Views
the whole community was younger then. It really doesn't apply to today.
- 24/11/2010 07:50:56 AM
782 Views
Unless you mean the whole internet community, it's far more applicable, but to different individuals
- 24/11/2010 02:26:01 PM
891 Views
188 f-bombs dropped in titles, $hit's used 142 times in titles
- 22/11/2010 05:01:02 PM
811 Views
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
- 22/11/2010 06:27:59 PM
803 Views
Yea, you're helping exclude dozens, if not hundreds of potential RAFOlk. 
- 22/11/2010 07:42:58 PM
961 Views
- 22/11/2010 07:42:58 PM
961 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
849 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
774 Views
*waves* Hi! *NM*
- 22/11/2010 10:17:52 PM
418 Views
Hey there!
- 22/11/2010 10:30:24 PM
1013 Views
A great deal of us were underage, though.
- 23/11/2010 01:11:58 AM
880 Views
And look what a dirty mouth you got even without our help *NM*
- 23/11/2010 08:04:06 AM
393 Views
*NM*
- 23/11/2010 08:04:06 AM
393 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
794 Views
Who cares about the cursing. In other ways wotmania did probably corrupt me, though.
- 23/11/2010 10:25:37 PM
808 Views
- 23/11/2010 10:25:37 PM
808 Views