Active Users:468 Time:18/09/2025 11:41:39 AM
Well, honestly, I don't know, but I expect language filter subroutines are pretty standardized now. Joel Send a noteboard - 22/11/2010 08:01:07 PM
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.

Also remember that RAFO has no such filter anyway, so there's nothing to find, however thorough the check; however basic or complex such a check is, RAFO fails it miserably.

Anyway, I admit this is an assumption, but I expect language filters have been around long enough to be fairly standardized; part of the point of having subroutines is to simplify the code not just for the people who wrote it, but for later troubleshooting by that person and others. In fact, IIRC, one of the complaints against wotmania was that Mike often patched old code rather than rewriting it, so that after a decade it was a confusing jumble even he had trouble navigating, and hopeless for anyone else. I doubt there are very many ways of filtering content in common use, or that it would be difficult for a webbrowser to recognize that among the data it receives when linked to a site.

I also still think it's kind of silly to put an exclamation point next to a dead link, as RAFO does with the nonexistent "Rules" section. It's important enough to command attention, but not to actually go anywhere.

Like I said, built for nostalgia, not longevity. It's not my call, but maybe it's time to stop kidding ourselves.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Can we swear at RAFO? - 22/11/2010 04:57:59 AM 1068 Views
Fuck no. Are you shitting me? There's no damn chance we can swear. - 22/11/2010 05:01:48 AM 692 Views
You DARE presume to assault my delicate ears with your nasty coarse sailor talk??? - 22/11/2010 05:05:23 AM 721 Views
Delicate? *NM* - 22/11/2010 05:06:19 AM 387 Views
Yes? - 22/11/2010 05:37:36 AM 586 Views
I don't know, can you? *NM* - 22/11/2010 05:54:20 AM 405 Views
Why not try it an find out. *NM* - 22/11/2010 06:05:35 AM 363 Views
hell to the fuck yes! *NM* - 22/11/2010 10:51:07 AM 350 Views
I can't think of underage users - 22/11/2010 11:32:40 AM 772 Views
Well - 22/11/2010 11:47:13 AM 776 Views
That's a good point of course - 22/11/2010 11:58:37 AM 689 Views
Re: That's a good point of course - 22/11/2010 12:11:25 PM 820 Views
THANK YOU! *hugs* - 22/11/2010 12:28:38 PM 637 Views
Back off! - 22/11/2010 12:31:13 PM 690 Views
'SOK: I hugged a man (in public)... - 22/11/2010 12:35:16 PM 572 Views
I never had that issue. - 22/11/2010 05:38:59 PM 706 Views
*NM* - 22/11/2010 05:53:24 PM 416 Views
The difference is webbrowsers can't be set to automatically exlude the former from web searches. - 22/11/2010 12:01:05 PM 763 Views
How many posts have there been with swear words in titles? - 22/11/2010 12:45:49 PM 613 Views
Are you telling me monitors are THAT horribly inefficient? - 22/11/2010 02:55:43 PM 795 Views
Scanning a CoC requires a human (or significantly improved parsing), whereas spidering can be dumb - 22/11/2010 03:06:19 PM 697 Views
I figured,but checking for filter subroutines seems like it would be pretty easy. - 22/11/2010 04:18:01 PM 807 Views
Subroutines such as what? - 22/11/2010 04:33:05 PM 1028 Views
Well, honestly, I don't know, but I expect language filter subroutines are pretty standardized now. - 22/11/2010 08:01:07 PM 1035 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 674 Views
OK, but even then preventing such posts covers the contingencies while censoring none. - 23/11/2010 01:49:15 PM 717 Views
well... - 23/11/2010 04:14:51 PM 728 Views
Re: well... - 23/11/2010 05:26:14 PM 706 Views
Re: well... - 23/11/2010 06:42:43 PM 683 Views
Yes, a lot of people don't seem to want RAFO "invaded" by new people. - 23/11/2010 07:03:14 PM 761 Views
new people is not the same as children. *NM* - 23/11/2010 08:30:43 PM 345 Views
True, but the same principles apply to people surfing at work or college. - 23/11/2010 09:16:30 PM 725 Views
Please. - 23/11/2010 09:40:16 PM 732 Views
I resent that. - 23/11/2010 10:09:36 PM 601 Views
Sadface. *NM* - 23/11/2010 10:12:31 PM 361 Views
... and later additions like Ghavrel? - 23/11/2010 10:24:28 PM 770 Views
188 f-bombs dropped in titles, $hit's used 142 times in titles - 22/11/2010 05:01:02 PM 699 Views
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck - 22/11/2010 06:27:59 PM 688 Views
Yea, you're helping exclude dozens, if not hundreds of potential RAFOlk. - 22/11/2010 07:42:58 PM 840 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 728 Views
*NM* - 22/11/2010 09:36:20 PM 699 Views
Who said anything about regulation? - 23/11/2010 01:45:21 AM 744 Views
I love how you made Adam into a positive - 22/11/2010 05:40:33 PM 792 Views
For good or ill, Adam was very much a part of wotmania. - 22/11/2010 07:40:03 PM 743 Views
*waves* Hi! *NM* - 22/11/2010 10:17:52 PM 363 Views
Hey there! - 22/11/2010 10:30:24 PM 889 Views
A few honest answers. - 22/11/2010 10:54:30 PM 629 Views
Thanks - 22/11/2010 11:07:00 PM 636 Views
Perfectly alright. *NM* - 22/11/2010 11:12:43 PM 244 Views
A great deal of us were underage, though. - 23/11/2010 01:11:58 AM 771 Views
And look what a dirty mouth you got even without our help *NM* - 23/11/2010 08:04:06 AM 336 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 660 Views
Who cares about the cursing. In other ways wotmania did probably corrupt me, though. - 23/11/2010 10:25:37 PM 696 Views
*sniggers* - 24/11/2010 02:27:22 PM 575 Views
Has anyone actually voiced that concern? - 24/11/2010 02:28:23 PM 682 Views
yes. - 22/11/2010 12:05:23 PM 627 Views
True. - 22/11/2010 06:45:58 PM 699 Views
I love how the original poster hasn't responded to any of this. - 23/11/2010 03:11:58 AM 672 Views
Probably still in shock. - 23/11/2010 01:52:01 PM 701 Views

Reply to Message