sparks, I can't find the details.
Can you please email me them again?
Offline
Hmm, could you put the code for the commenting on the other site?
Offline
Now I can't post though. :S
Offline
scimonster wrote:
Now I can't post though. :S
Works for me.
Offline
I can't login D:
Offline
Because I don't particularly want to spend ages compiling a list of rude words Amos was kind enough to give me the list used by the Scratch site. However, the commenting system will have the same limitations caused by the Scunthorpe problem as the Scratch one. This means that the word "grapes" will also be blocked once the filter is in place. I really can't see a way around it though!
Offline
sparks wrote:
Because I don't particularly want to spend ages compiling a list of rude words Amos was kind enough to give me the list used by the Scratch site. However, the commenting system will have the same limitations caused by the Scunthorpe problem as the Scratch one. This means that the word "grapes" will also be blocked once the filter is in place. I really can't see a way around it though!
Here's an idea! Why don't you take a list of real words and compare it against the post?

Offline
That's what it already does, Greenatic
Imagine that the word "app" is a word we don't want to appear. There are two things we can do.
1) disallow the word app to be posted.
app = blocked
apple = blocked
You can see that the word apple is blocked even though it's not the one we're looking for.
2) disallow the word app to be posted with spaces to either side
app = blocked
apple = not blocked.
In this case app is only removed if there are spaces to either site. However, you could now write .app. or :app: or !app! or app. or any other combination of characters to either site of the word.
Offline
sparks wrote:
That's what it already does, Greenatic
![]()
Imagine that the word "app" is a word we don't want to appear. There are two things we can do.
1) disallow the word app to be posted.
app = blocked
apple = blocked
You can see that the word apple is blocked even though it's not the one we're looking for.
2) disallow the word app to be posted with spaces to either side
app = blocked
apple = not blocked.
In this case app is only removed if there are spaces to either site. However, you could now write .app. or :app: or !app! or app. or any other combination of characters to either site of the word.
No, that's not what I meant, because of what you mentioned in the last paragraph. This is what I mean, using your app example:
The user posts "app apple !app!".
1) Check to see if each word contains an inappropiate word. All the words do.
2) Check to see if each blocked word is a real word.
App is not a valid word.
Apple is.
!app! is not.
Therefore, app and !app! are censored, and combinations like :app: and !app won't work. In addition, I would automatically replace @ with a, $ with s, etc. before step #1. That's a smart filter.

Offline
sparks wrote:
That's what it already does, Greenatic
![]()
Imagine that the word "app" is a word we don't want to appear. There are two things we can do.
1) disallow the word app to be posted.
app = blocked
apple = blocked
You can see that the word apple is blocked even though it's not the one we're looking for.
2) disallow the word app to be posted with spaces to either side
app = blocked
apple = not blocked.
In this case app is only removed if there are spaces to either site. However, you could now write .app. or :app: or !app! or app. or any other combination of characters to either site of the word.
Well, if it checks for spaces or underscores around it, and it has a flag, it should be OK.
Offline
So in other words you want the commenting system to check if every word containing a swear word is actually an existing word too? That sounds like a big job compiling a dictionary....
On the other hand a list of common exceptions could be created...
Offline
sparks wrote:
So in other words you want the commenting system to check if every word containing a swear word is actually an existing word too? That sounds like a big job compiling a dictionary....
On the other hand a list of common exceptions could be created...
Yeah, a list of exceptions would be good!
Offline
sparks wrote:
One day someone is going to want to write about grapes... There's probably a site somewhere that lists normal words that have rude words inside them...
And there are a hundred topics here complaining.
Offline
sparks wrote:
Okay, I'll see what I can rustle up... Amos was complaining that theirs sucks so If I submit my system to them they might even start using it
![]()
XD
Offline
You should now be able to log in and comment as yourself here! Please tell me what browser you are using if there are any problems with it!
I haven't managed to hide the login bar until you press "Login" yet, so it's always there if you log out. Admins and librarians: I also fixed the admin page so that you're not logged out all the time!
Last edited by sparks (2011-08-31 10:29:18)
Offline
Grr, I can't log in to the admin page.
Offline
You can't? That's odd.... Have you tried logging in and out again?
And you didn't log in as Scimonster, did you? You need to log in as scimonster.
Last edited by sparks (2011-08-31 10:40:52)
Offline
sparks wrote:
You can't? That's odd.... Have you tried logging in and out again?
And you didn't log in as Scimonster, did you? You need to log in as scimonster.
I'll check. Let's discuss on the test page. lol
Offline
supported smilies, since I can't get it to post on the test page, are
:) :( :D :angel: O_o :wave: :cool: ¬_¬ v_v :huh: :laugh: :lol: '-' :o :rolleyes: :# :'( :P :unsure: ;)
The smilies came from a free website under the "forum smilies" category
Last edited by sparks (2011-08-31 10:48:57)
Offline
I can't post either. :S
Offline